david f,
The Servant mâšîah (from Isaiah) or 'anointed one', when read in context appears as a metaphor for Israel. Culturally a Jew and educated as one, Jesus appears to have drawn from this tradition - a cornerstone in Jewish thought. The Messianic elements belonging to the 'military tradition' are contrary to the concept of a ‘Suffering Israel’ but quite applicable to a ‘Davidic’ and militarily triumphal Messiah. To hope for the restoration Israel, the purification of the Temple, to be anointed at Bethany, explain the Law of Moses and to cast out ‘demons’ were not ‘mistaken’ in terms of Messianic ambition. I think, David, you should perhaps be looking for the fraudulent and the delusional.

A ‘Messianic’ Hitler was the ‘reality’ for the German people - millions of German households erected shrines featuring a photograph of what they thought of as their dictator’s divine countenance. This ‘reality’, however, did not pervade all who resided within the West or Germany. It were the adherents of traditional religion (amongst others) where is was a Martin Niemöller, Dietrich Bonheoffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, C.S. Lewis or Martin Buber, who often warned most clearly of the tragedy to come from attempting to build man's own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth. It was a ‘version’ clearly in need of distinction.

Buber also made strong distinction between Mohandas Gandhi’s Satyagraha and the Hebrew tikkun olam. Gandhi's mistake arose from his attempts to apply the history of India to the history of the Jewish people and worse, to impose his understanding of the ontology and cosmology of Hinduism on the Jewish faith. Buber clearly asked Gandhi by what right he ventured to demand that German Jews become martyrs to Nazi evil - to which he received no reply.
cont’d…

cont’d…
Evil is one of the deepest and most central problems of human existence - a problem which every individual and every age must face for itself. Buber does not subscribe to an attitude of ‘original sin’ but in his words the problem of evil is "a mode of seeing and being which dwells in life itself." It underlies all our valuations, for valuing is nothing other than the decision as to what is good and evil and the attitude which one then takes toward the possibility of avoiding evil or transforming it into good. This is far from a ‘grandiose vision’, nor can I see that it will lead to Totalitarianism – Israel, if as a suffering servant, is well beneath the premise of pretentious dreaming. However, and as Abraham Joshua Heschel articulates, "Tragic is the role of religion in contemporary society."

Buber’s brand of Zionism differed to that of Herzl’s Zionism. It was based on the fundamental moral and spiritual values of Judaism of the tikkun olam, to which you’ve referred. This ‘repair’ or redemption was to be gained through the establishment of truth and justice in all of the institutions and activities of the Jewish settlement in Palestine. Buber believed the Arab question to be the moral litmus test of Zionism. Undoubtedly he’d fiercely oppose the secular and self-centered nationalism currently entrenched within a part of Israeli politics, where the Palestinian grievances are ignored. The primary task of the Jewish movement was to remove of the schism between thought and action and the reestablishment of the ‘unified personality’ - a more focused and single commitment of the will. To effect this harmony the creative person must have roots in a people through whom he or her is enriched and fortified.

Buber, nor the Jewish faith can ever recognize Jesus as the Messiah Come, for this would contradict the deepest meaning of Jewish Messianic passion. Redemption is ongoing, as you imply and the linearity of time agrees with this. But in the ‘fullness’ of time, where past and future are present, redemption is complete.

Dear Relda,

I don’t know what you mean by advising me to look for the fraudulent and delusional.

I think the entire messianic story is delusional in that it is a wish based on nothing but a desire to undo the past.

From Biblical exegesis in estimating at what time the messianic prophesies were written they appeared about 150 years after the breakup of the kingdom into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The messiah was originally cast as a military hero. David was a man of war and, therefore, was deemed unfit to build the Temple. Solomon did that.

However, we can see from the references at the time that the messiah was first thought of as a military figure reuniting the separate kingdoms:

HOSEA 1:11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

HOSEA 3:5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

In that context the following refers to the peace following reunification:

HOSEA 2:18 … I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, …

Similar references are in the Psalms and Amos.

Later in Isaiah there was a grander vision of a messiah

ISAIAH 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The above is from the King James Version. In the Hebrew original a young woman (almah) will conceive. The Hebrew word for virgin is ‘bethulah’. The theology of the virgin birth is the consequence of a translation error.

He brings universal peace:

ISAIAH 11:6
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie
down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling
together; and a little child shall lead them.

Dear Relda,

It is difficult for me to discuss Jesus as he strikes fear in me. He has been used to support the persecution and murder of my people. I don’t know what he actually was or whether he actually existed. I discount all the miracles in the New Testament. I don’t believe in a virgin birth. The circumstances of his life have too much in common with pagan deities such as Osiris, Mithra and Apollo not to come to the conclusion that he was a mythical figure adopted by early Christians to make their new religion acceptable to the gentiles of the classical world.

The two groups of early followers of Jesus were the predominantly Jewish followers of James and the followers of Paul who had a much larger gentile admixture. The followers of James were mostly wiped out in the failed revolt of 70 CE so a greater opening to the gentiles became necessary for the new sect.

I don’t make a distinction between man's own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth and God’s version of the New Jerusalem on Earth. Whether the vision is of the Bible or of Hitler it is all the work of man. God and the Bible are human inventions. I distrust all visions of building New Jerusalems on Earth. I think we can try to make things better, and that’s it.

I don’t believe evil is one of the deepest and most central problems of human existence. There is no absolute definition of evil. I think of slavery as evil. However, if I were living in the land and time of the writing of the Bible when slavery was an accepted practice I would probably not think of slavery as evil.

Evil is simply what we find reprehensible in the society in which we live.

There is much to admire in Buber. However, like Philo of Alexandria he was a Jew who had much more influence on Christians than on Jews. I think very few Jews are aware of Buber, and very few Jews are not aware of Herzl.

Dear Relda,

What do you mean by redemption through history? Please give an example.

What is your vision of a New Jerusalem?

Thank you.

Still at it, no surprise there. The old "I'm right, you're wrong" pointless arguments.

And so many quoting "facts" when it's mostly theory they quote.

Those Christians who staunchly defend their faith and deny everything else really need to start looking at themselves.

I will guarantee all right now most of those people have not actually read the Bible fully. And certainly I would openly state that none of them has actually analysed and researched the very basic issues.

One of which I'll give you here.

Whenever I run into someone who wants to talk religion, Christian version, they spout off about this issue or that, judging supposedly based on their faith, from the Bible.

By asking them a couple of questions they become confused or abusive.

The first is simple "Is the Bible the Word of God?".

So many say it is despite the many detailed and historic accounts of changes made by various people. Constantine being one such major character.

So when they say it is the Word of God they demonstrate no knowledge at all.

The second is asking what titles Jesus was most frequently referred to by. By others and himself.

Most self proclaimed Christians will immediately come up with "Son of God" but even today's version of the Bible proves that wrong. Jesus referred to himself mostly as "Son of Man". Which I see as saying I am just a man but my message is from above. Don't revere me, revere the message. Big difference to Son of God right? But Jesus made that distinction himself so by doubting that you doubt Jesus.

The second title is "Messiah". Literal meaning? King of the Jews. He was crowned and died as such and you could really say he was never a Christian at all. He was "ome of the chosen people", the Jewish.

What followed his life is what we do today. Make dead people much more than they really were. Say the truth about such people and you get howled down. Same, same.