david f,
I think the shelf-life analogy is a good one, but I think some hard distinction here is also critical. Bear in mind also, the ‘Christianity’ of two millennia ago is different to the’ Christianity’ of today, just as with Judaism four millennia ago. Joachim was primarily a theoretician of messianism and responsible for the emergence of the Spiritual Franciscans and the heretical groups expecting Jesus to return in about 1260. Hal Lindsey is perhaps a modern more radical counterpart, whose followers have included the survivalist, American patriot mentality of e.g. Randy Weaver. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Oklahoma City bombing have also been spawned from this type of belief.

It seems a particularly broad brush where we are to paint Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Joachim and Karl Marx onto the same canvas. All three have certainly attempted to “give meaning to a meaningless world”. History appears to have ruled out the latter two as ‘false prophets’. Although there are probably those whose ‘worship’ of either figure might place them above this. Jesus, nevertheless, didn’t suddenly return in 1260 and the extension of Karl Marx’s theory into practice appears to have failed abysmally. All were proponents of ‘systems’, Teilhard, however, seems to offer ‘hope’ in breaking the cycle. He maintained that all developmental lines converge to his Omega point. The conclusion followed that everything and everybody will be saved, that the church becomes identical with mankind and that the last judgment is replaced by the process of natural selection. Teilhard believed evolution is always an ascent toward increased consciousness. His evolutionary eschatology has its limitations, but if one believes in progress and the hope for a better future as being the "illegitimate child of Christianity", Christians are bound to the ‘original sin’ of ‘legitimate’ Christianity – I think that Teilhard was perhaps more aligned to Judaism than you may think.

Where immaturity is the inability to use your intellect without the guidance of someone else I’ll agree with Kant, and say that enlightenment is the emancipation of man from his self-inflicted immaturity – this is almost quite atheistically Judaic.

relda,
Thanks for the interesting comment. I concede, I confused “Jews for Jesus” (that I knew nothing about) with Messianic Judaism which was not “foisted” on them by an outsider.

david f,
Thanks for citing the well known differences between Judaism and Christianity. I respect your interpretation that they are contradictory, however I tend to agree more with Martin Buber:

“Rabbi Ehrenkranz related an anecdote, ascribed to Martin Buber, who told it on one occasion to a Christian audience. Buber asked them what the difference was between himself, a Jew, and the Christian audience. His answer was that Christians believe the Messiah has already come, whereas the Jewish people believe he has not come yet. When he comes, Buber suggested that the most pressing question for Jews and Christians would be whether this was the Messiah's first or second coming. However, before the Messiah revealed his answer, Buber would whisper in the Messiah's ear: "Don't answer that question." (my recollection of Buber’s advise is “Say ‘I don’t remember‘“). Rabbi Ehrenkranz's take of Buber's anecdote was that the point of our belief in the Messiah is not whether it is his first or second coming. Rather, that our belief in the Messiah inspires us all - Jews and Christians alike - to be better people; to make the world a better place to live in for everyone; to live in the world as equals [http://www.cccj-ab.org/dialog00.htm].

>>Jews for Jesus are not Jews but Christians<<
Maybe so. However, if the source I quoted to relda is correct, then those who profess Messianic Judaism would not like to be called Christians any more than those professing “mainstream” Judaism would like it. They remain ethnic Jews but their religion is a deviation of both mainstream Judaism and Christianity - though I would not go as far as calling it a hybrid. You can “excommunicate” somebody from a religious community but you cannot strip him/her of his/her ethnicity, personal cultural heritage.

>> I don’t make a hard differentiation between secular ideology and religion.<<
Anthropologists do, e.g. Clifford Geertz in The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books 1973/2000.

Dear Relda,

I did wield a broad brush. However, I think Pierre Teilhard de Chardin belongs with Marx and Joachim. His Omega point is another millennial vision – an apotheosis that neatly wraps up human history. His hope is no more real than that of Marx or Joachim. The omega point, the age of the Holy Spirit and the eventual classless society belong together. Teilhard believed evolution is always an ascent toward increased consciousness. That is not true of the evolution of a parasite. He certainly was not referring to what evolutionary biologists call evolution. I think human history will end when there are no longer historians to recount it.

I don’t believe in progress. I believe that the struggle for a decent society is one that will continue with each generation. We will have to contend with the new challenges produced by technology, the struggle for resources and our interaction with the environment. There will be no apotheosis.

Perhaps we have a different view of prophets. My view is shared by many Jews who do not regard prophesy as foretelling the future. Our prophets are lone figures who point out the injustices in society or individuals. Nathan who said to King David, “Thou art the man!” is one of these heroic figures. We can listen to prophets and try to correct the injustices they point out.

Your reminding me of the difference between the Christianity and Judaism of the past and of the present is appropriate.

Our immaturity is not self-inflicted any more than that of a child is. We are immature because we haven’t grown up. I hope our immaturity includes a sense of wonder and a desire to learn more about the world around us. I will be 83 next month and fear the ennui of maturity.

We are not isolated individuals but part of society. Thinking is a solitary act, but thinking without our thoughts being tested by observation, experiment and interaction with others is a barren process. Einstein used gedankenexperiment, but his theories had still to be tested by physical reality.

Dear George,

The idea of a messiah apparently arose from hoping for someone to reunite the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The myth grew until the messiah became a figure to lead humanity into a messianic era and bring peace on earth.

Like the Chosen People idea the idea of a messiah is another bad one. God does not choose groups of people and put them as special as opposed to other groups of people. That is an ethnocentric God that I completely reject. I also reject the idea of a magical figure who is going to make everything peachy dandy. The messianic idea stems from a primitive cargo cult mentality apparently shared by Martin Buber.

Both secular ideology and religion can rest on the belief in unprovable propositions. Where they do they are equally unsupportable. That is my criterion for bringing them together. You cited Geertz but didn’t cite the criterion or criteria he used to separate the ideas.

Our ethics and traditions are important. Both the Chosen People and the Messiah are childish ideas like tooth fairy and Santa Claus. I think Jesus as messiah is central to Christianity so Christians are stuck with the idea. That may not be so. Possibly both Christianity and Judaism can develop the maturity to stop depending on a magical messiah.

Jews for Jesus may not like being referred to as Christians. However the Jewish community regards them as Christians. It doesn’t matter that Hitler or some Christians regard them as Jews. You keep referring to ethnic Jews, but we are not a race or nationality. We are a community. At Temple Shalom we have conversion classes. Irish Catholics have become Jews. They remain ethnic Irish, but they are no longer Catholic. Being Jewish is not something indelible or genetic. It is something the individual can change. Lustiger and Jews for Jesus may both have nostalgia for their origins. Nevertheless they repudiated them by leaving the community. They are goyim.

I would not be so bold as to tell a Christian who is a Christian. You do not show similar restraint.

I am a Jewish believer in Jesus. Most blogs and news services have quoted the same one paragraph of the six-page transcript of David Brickner’s message, giving the false impression that he is saying that a bulldozer attack by a deranged Palestinian is God’s judgment on the Jewish people. Please read or listen to the entire message for yourself at www.jewsforjesus.org/blog/20080817 so that you can hear Brickner’s remarks in context. Please also take a look at Brickner’s comments concerning his message at Wasilla Bible Church, as well as interviews by Christianity Today and MSNBC with Brickner about this issue, at www.jewsforjesus.org. Among other things, Brickner says, "The comments attributed to me were taken out of context. The notion that the terrorist, bulldozer attack in Jerusalem this summer was God’s judgment on Israel for not believing in Jesus, is absolutely not what I believe. In retrospect, I can see how my rhetoric might be misunderstood and I truly regret that. Of course I never expected the kind of magnifying glass scrutiny on a message where I was speaking extemporaneously. Let me be clear. I don’t believe that any one event whether a terrorist attack or a natural disaster is a specific fulfillment of or manifestation of a Biblical prediction of judgment. I don’t believe that the newspaper should be used to interpret the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible. I love my Jewish people and the land of Israel. I stand with and support her against all efforts to harm her or her people in any way."

david f,
You exhibit a 'critical realism' - Judaic thought certainly takes serious account of the human situation. Your take on progress clearly has its derivation in, “Man came out of nothingness and will go hack into nothingness” – he is effectively, “dust to dust”. ‘Progress’ is therefore largely illusory. The concept of progress is of Western origin and is founded in the Christian understanding of history. This is all largely bound to a linear concept of time – a ‘reality’ which Einstein dissolved. It was the theologian Emil Brunner who actually said that the belief in progress and the hope for a better future is an "illegitimate child of Christianity." In this one illusory aspect you essentially agree with him.

It's obviously true we’re all a part of society, as you say, but a large amount of current secular thinking isolates us. A part of the reality is, we no longer have community. Yes, we have ‘clubs’ and sport and any manner of activity but I see our remaining remnant of social cohesion tearing at the seams. I agree, we need to test our thoughts with interaction and to experiment with others, otherwise our processes are barren. It seems, though, a self-inflicted isolation places many where they no longer properly interact. It appears, no longer is there the trust of community – but instead, there exists an atmosphere of spiteful litigation. Individuals, fighting for their ‘rights’.

The Greek outlook on history and on the future is basically pessimistic as a cyclic concept of history or of nature cannot lead to the progressive endeavor of man. It is perhaps an enlightened mistake where we replace what has now become more of an ‘ennui’ with the belief in progress - origin and result have been exchanged. Is the assumption of a ‘faith’ in progress, resting on the sufficiency of mankind alone, enough to guarantee us a future? You do not agree in progress and neither do I. I think our prophets do not only justice, as the ‘law’ prescribes, but they also read well the signs of the time.