Judaism Messiah Quotes

When Maimonides says that the Messiah will come but that 'he may tarry,' we see the origin of every Jewish shrug from Spinoza to Woody Allen.

One notorious apikoros named Hiwa al-Balkhi, writing in ninth-century Persia, offered two hundred awkward questions to the faithful. He drew upon himself the usual thunderous curses—'may his name be forgotten, may his bones be worn to nothing'—along with detailed refutations and denunciations by Abraham ibn Ezra and others. These exciting anathemas, of course, ensured that his worrying 'questions' would remain current for as long as the Orthodox commentaries would be read. In this way, rather as when Maimonides says that the Messiah will come but that 'he may tarry,' Jewishness contrives irony at its own expense. If there is one characteristic of Jews that I admire, it is that irony is seldom if ever wasted on them.

The traditional version of history bequeathed to us by the authorities of the Roman Church is that Christianity developed from the teachings of a Jewish Messiah and that Gnosticism was a later deviation. What would happen, we wondered, if the picture were reversed and Gnosticism viewed as the authentic Christianity, just as the Gnostics themselves claimed? Could it be that orthodox Christianity was a later deviation from Gnosticism and that Gnosticism was a synthesis of Judaism and the Pagan Mystery religion?

Judaism says, “The Messiah is going to come, and that’s the end of history”; Christianity says, “The Messiah is going to come back, and that’s the end of history”; Islam says, “The Messiah came; history is irrelevant.” One

People think Judaism and Christianity are radically different from one another, and that the difference is straightforward. But on Ascension Day, I am struck by the deep similarity that lies just underneath. Both Jews and Christians live in a world that is not yet redeemed, and both us await ultimate redemption. Some of us wait for a messiah to come once and forever; others of us wait for Him to come back. But we are both stuck living in a world where redemption is not complete, where we have redemptive work to do, where we cannot always see God as clearly as we would like, because He is up in Heaven. We are both waiting.

Despite two millennia of Christian apologetics, the fact is that belief in a dying and rising messiah simply did not exist in Judaism. In the entirety of the Hebrew Bible there is not a single passage of scripture or prophecy about the promised messiah that even hints of his ignominious death, let alone his bodily resurrection.

(There is, however, one thing about which all the prophecies seem to agree: the messiah is a human being, not divine. The idea of a divine messiah is anathema to Judaism, which is why, without exception, every text in the Hebrew Bible dealing with the messiah presents him as performing his messianic functions on earth, not in heaven.)

During the year that the atrocities in the Ukraine occurred, a young Turkish Jew of arresting personality and magnetism announced himself as the Messiah in the city of Salonika. This was the cabalist Sabbatai Zevi. Because the Jews of his day had the will to believe in a supernatural instrumentality that would save them from further disaster, he came as the answer to their prayers. Messianic hysteria swept like a conflagration over all of European Jewry. Tens of thousands liquidated their worldly affairs and readied themselves for the End of Days.

Muslim fundamentalists have toppled governments and either assassinated or threatened the enemies of Islam with the death penalty. Similarly, Jewish fundamentalists have settled in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with the avowed intention of driving out the Arab inhabitants, using force if necessary. Thus they believe that they are paving a way for the advent of the Messiah, which is at hand. In all its forms, fundamentalism is a fiercely reductive faith. Thus Rabbi Meir Kahane, the most extreme member of Israel’s Far Right until his assassination in New York in 1990: There

At the present time, political power is everywhere constituted on insufficient foundations. On the one hand it emanates from the so-called divine right of kings, which is none other than military force; on the other from universal suffrage, which is merely the instinct of the masses, or mere average intelligence. A nation is not a number of uniform values or ciphers; it is a living being composed of organs. So long as national representation is not the image of this organization, right from its working to its teaching classes, there will be no organic or intelligent national representation. So long as the delegates of all scientific bodies, and the whole of the Christian churches do not sit together in one upper council, our societies will be governed by instinct, by passion, and by might, and there will be no social temple. ...We are beginning to understand that Jesus, at the very height of his consciousness, the transfigured Christ, is opening his loving arms to his brothers, the other Messiahs who preceded him, beams of the Living Word as he was, that he is opening them wide to Science in its entirety, Art in its divinity, and Life in its completeness. But his promise cannot be fulfilled without the help of all the living forces of humanity. Two main things are necessary nowadays for the continuation of the mighty work: on the one hand, the progressive unfolding of experimental science and intuitive philosophy to facts of psychic order, intellectual principles, and spiritual proofs; on the other, the expansion of Christian dogma in the direction of tradition and esoteric science, and subsequently a reorganization of the Church according to a graduated initiation; this by a free and irresistible movement of all Christian churches, which are also equally daughters of the Christ. Science must become religious and religion scientific. This double evolution, already in preparation, would finally and forcibly bring about a reconciliation of Science and Religion on esoteric grounds. The work will not progress without considerable difficulty at first, but the future of European Society depends on it. The transformation of Christianity, in its esoteric sense would bring with it that of Judaism and Islam, as well as a regeneration of Brahmanism and Buddhism in the same fashion, it would accordingly furnish a religious basis for the reconciliation of Asia and Europe.

Peter announced: “There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12 NLT). Many recoil at such definitiveness. John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 sound primitive in this era of broadbands and broad minds. The world is shrinking, cultures are blending, borders are bending; this is the day of inclusion. All roads lead to heaven, right? But can they? The sentence makes good talk-show fodder, but is it accurate? Can all approaches to God be correct? Islam says Jesus was not crucified. Christians say he was. Both can’t be right. Judaism refuses the claim of Christ as the Messiah.6 Christians accept it. Someone’s making a mistake. Buddhists look toward Nirvana, achieved after no less than 547 reincarnations.7 Christians believe in one life, one death, and an eternity of enjoying God. Doesn’t one view exclude the other? Humanists do not acknowledge a creator of life. Jesus claims to be the source of life. One of the two speaks folly. Spiritists read your palms. Christians consult the Bible. Hindus perceive a plural and impersonal God.8 Christ-followers believe “there is only one God” (1 Cor. 8:4 NLT). Somebody is wrong. And, most supremely, every non-Christian religion says, “You can save you.” Jesus says, “My death on the cross saves you.” How can all religions lead to God when they are so different? We don’t tolerate such illogic in other matters. We don’t pretend that all roads lead to London or all ships sail to Australia.

The fate of the Gospels was decided by death—it hung on the “cross.”... It was only death, that unexpected and shameful death; it was only the cross, which was usually reserved for the canaille only—it was only this appalling paradox which brought the disciples face to face with the real riddle: “Who was it? what was it?”—The feeling of dismay, of profound affront and injury; the suspicion that such a death might involve a refutation of their cause; the terrible question, “Why just in this way?”—this state of mind is only too easy to understand. Here everything must be accounted for as necessary; everything must have a meaning, a reason, the highest sort of reason; the love of a disciple excludes all chance. Only then did the chasm of doubt yawn: “Who put him to death? who was his natural enemy?”—this question flashed like a lightning-stroke. Answer: dominant Judaism, its ruling class. From that moment, one found one’s self in revolt against the established order, and began to understand Jesus as in revolt against the established order. Until then this militant, this nay-saying, nay-doing element in his character had been lacking; what is more, he had appeared to present its opposite. Obviously, the little community had not understood what was precisely the most important thing of all: the example offered by this way of dying, the freedom from and superiority to every feeling of ressentiment—a plain indication of how little he was understood at all! All that Jesus could hope to accomplish by his death, in itself, was to offer the strongest possible proof, or example, of his teachings in the most public manner.... But his disciples were very far from forgiving his death—though to have done so would have accorded with the Gospels in the highest degree; and neither were they prepared to offer themselves, with gentle and serene calmness of heart, for a similar death.... On the contrary, it was precisely the most unevangelical of feelings, revenge, that now possessed them. It seemed impossible that the cause should perish with his death: “recompense” and “judgment” became necessary (—yet what could be less evangelical than “recompense,” “punishment,” and “sitting in judgment”!). Once more the popular belief in the coming of a messiah appeared in the foreground; attention was rivetted upon an historical moment: the “kingdom of God” is to come, with judgment upon his enemies.... But in all this there was a wholesale misunderstanding: imagine the “kingdom of God” as a last act, as a mere promise! The Gospels had been, in fact, the incarnation, the fulfilment, the realization of this “kingdom of God.” It was only now that all the familiar contempt for and bitterness against Pharisees and theologians began to appear in the character of the Master—he was thereby turned into a Pharisee and theologian himself!

Prophecy is the ability to predict future events with one hundred percent accuracy. Only God can do this. Each of the false religions and cults has a story about how things were created and how the world will end. Any good science fiction writer can do this with ease. But when we look at the holy books of these religious bodies, do any of them have historically verifiable prophecies written centuries ago but fulfilled in our life-time?   Only one holy book does that. It is the Bible! In the following chart you can see that none of the world’s false religions have any prophecy in their writings. Some do not even have a written history. This leads us to the conclusion that we can only look to Judaism and Christianity for the truth. We will look at a few of the modern prophecies fulfilled since Israel was reestablished as a nation in AD 1948. There have been over fifty prophecies fulfilled since 1948!   Since all of these prophecies are from the Old Testament, one might think that Judaism holds the key to complete truth; but when we look at the Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the Messiah, we can only conclude that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. Thus, we must look to Christianity for the answers.

The baptism that John was doing was a radical act. When a Gentile wanted to convert to Judaism, he was baptized with water to symbolize that a spiritually unclean pagan was coming into the true people of God. But John demanded that everyone, Jews as well as Gentiles, be baptized to be ready for the Messiah. He was saying that everyone is unclean and undeserving. It was a bold public stance.

Judaism was (by divine providence) self-created. In that respect it was unlike any other great religion. Its ‘sparks’ had ignited Christianity. Its ‘seeds’ had brought forth the fruits of Islam. From its insights could be traced the origins both of scholastic philosophy and Protestantism.54 Moreover, the destiny of the Jews was continuing. Graetz did not see the Messiah as a person but as a collective. The Jews were a messianic people. Like Hegel he believed in the concept of a perfect state, and he saw the final Jewish task as preparing a religious state constitution, which would somehow inaugurate a golden age.

Nothing can be more important than what Jesus says about something.  Some of the ancient sages of Judaism claimed that all of Creation was made for Messiah, and by Messiah!  Therefore, He will be the ultimate source of truth.  His words, like Himself, will be eternal.  Can I get an amen to that?  Can we agree that He would never lie to or mislead anyone?  Sometimes (like all rabbis of that day and age) He taught in parables that were confusing or metaphorical, but He never lied or said anything He did not mean. In fact, can we agree that He never once broke the law in any way? 

Jesus' use of the title "Son of Man" in reference to his resurrection predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34) weighs in favor of authenticity. As argued in chapter 10 ("Who Did Jesus Think He Was?"), one reason for thinking that Jesus claimed this title is that it is recorded by multiple sources. Further, the New Testament epistles never refer to Jesus in this manner. But neither did the Jews think of the Son of Man in the sense of a suffering Messiah (see Dan. 7:13-14). So the principle of dissimilarity points to authenticity here. This criterion "focuses on words or deeds of Jesus that cannot be derived either from Judaism at the time of Jesus or from the early Church after him

To the extent that Catholicism contains any good ideas, they all come from the covert Mithraic and Platonic pagan elements of the religion. The Protestants got rid of the pagan elements and returned Christianity to a type of Judaism. In the absence of pagan elements, Christianity was never anything other than Messianic Judaism based on Jesus Christ as the Jewish Messiah, so the Messianic Jews are unquestionably the purest Christians in the world. Protestants are Jews who haven’t realised they’re Jews and Catholics are pagans who haven’t realised they’re pagans.

The entomology of the word Christos means “the Anointed One.” There is not much debate among scholars that Christos derives from the Egyptian KaRaST, the name of the mummy “seed” in the coffin, with the significant divinity buried in the flesh. Christos and Messiah have similar meanings of “Anointed.” Egyptian mes and Sanskrit kir both mean “to anoint” or “to pour.

The notion that God made certain other things before the creation of the physical world was quite common in Second Temple and early rabbinic Judaism—including wisdom, the heavenly throne, the Torah, the garden of Eden, Gehenna, the temple, and intriguingly, the name of the Messiah.27

As for American Jews—do I even need to stipulate how religiously reasonable they are? How little they fuss over the question of Heaven (although the fraction who believe in an afterlife has doubled since the 1970s), how few of them think a messiah is coming (although the small number who do has grown)? American Jews’ great exception to assimilation, bless them, has been the national weakness for the supernatural. It’s not only a matter of more education tending to make Jews more rational, although that correlation is striking: only one or two in ten Christian evangelicals, fundamentalists, and charismatics graduated college, versus six in ten Jews. An overwhelming majority of Protestants are fundamentalist, evangelical, or charismatic; maybe a sixth of Jews are Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox, or associated with the little New Age-y branch called Renewalist. American Judaism has not gone nuts.

Tolkien was very sensitive about anti-Semitism, so we know he would not have agreed with Justin Martyr’s comment we saw earlier in the book about the early church’s emerging replacement theology. In fact, in Rom 11: 18, Paul warned the gentiles coming into the church not to behave as if they had an advantage over either non-Christian Jews or Jewish members of the church: “Do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.” By Justin Martyr’s time (mid-second century), however, this warning went unheeded, largely due to two Jewish revolts against Rome, increasing tension between the various sects of Judaism, and the rise of a new messiah, Simon bar Kokhba. As we will see, Tolkien offered a corrective for this real historical problem through the relationship between Gimli and Legolas, who are close companions of Aragorn. Indeed, Aragorn’s return brings these two races back together, itself an indication that Aragorn resembles Jesus typologically. By including allusions to Israel’s story in the stories of elves and men in addition to the dwarves, Tolkien may have had Gal 3: 28 in mind where Paul says, “There is neither Jew nor gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Sartre threw away the entire content of thebourgeois subject, maintaining only its pure form, and the next stepwas to throw away this form itself—is it not that,mutatis mutandis,Der-rida threw away all the positive ontological content of messianism, re-taining nothing but the pure form of the messianic promise, and thenext step is to throw away this form itself? And, again, is this not alsothe passage from Judaism to Christianity? Judaism reduces the prom-ise of Another Life to a pure Otherness, a messianic promise whichwill never become fully present and actualized (the Messiah is always “to come”); while Christianity, far from claiming full realization ofthe promise, accomplishes something far more uncanny: the Messiahis here, he has arrived, the final Event has already taken place,yet the gap(the gap which sustained the messianic promise) remains....Here I am tempted to suggest a return to the earlier Derrida ofdifférance:what if (as Ernesto Laclau, among others, has already ar-gued17) Derrida’s turn to “postsecular” messianism is not a necessaryoutcome of his initial “deconstructionist” impetus? What if the ideaof infinite messianic Justice which operates in an indefinite suspen-sion, always to come, as the undeconstructible horizon of decon-struction, already obfuscates “pure”différance,the pure gap whichseparates an entity from itself? Is it not possible to think this pure in-between priorto any notion of messianic justice? Derrida acts as ifthe choice is between positive onto-ethics, the gesture of transcend-ing the existing order toward another higher positive Order, andthe pure promise of spectral Otherness—what, however, if we dropthis reference to Otherness altogether? What then remains is eitherSpinoza—the pure positivity of Being—or Lacan—the minimal con-tortion of drive, the minimal “empty” (self-)difference which is op-erative when a thing starts to function as a substitute for itself. As Freud observed, the very acts that are forbidden by religion arepracticed in the name of religion. In such cases—as, for instance, mur-der in the name of religion—religion also can do entirely withoutminiaturization.Those adamantly militant advocates of human life, forexample, who oppose abortion, will not stop short of actually mur-dering clinic personnel. Radical right-wing opponents of male homo-sexuality in the USA act in a similar way.They organize so-called “gaybashings” in the course of which they beat up and finally rape gays. What we have here, yet again, is the Hegelian “oppositional determi-nation”: in the figure of the gay-basher raping a gay, the gay encoun-ters himself in its oppositional determination; that is to say, tautology(self-identity) appears as the highest contradiction.This threshold canalso function as the foreign gaze itself: for example, when a disen-chanted Western subject perceives Tibet as a solution to his crisis, Ti-bet loses its immediate self-identity, and turns into a sign of itself,its own “oppositional determination.

Also strongly asserted in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the role on that Last Day of God’s agent—the Hebrew and Christian messiah, the Muslim mahdi, and the Zoroastrian Soshyant—who will “return” to earth to perform God’s final work with humankind.

If Jewish believers approached the evidence for Jesus as they might approach the evidence in a crime scene, they would be far more likely to accept him as the prophesied Messiah.

While 'clear' evidence points to the suspect from the onset (before he is contacted), 'cloaked' evidence points to the suspect only in hindsight (after he is identified)...The cloaked prophecies are limited in their ability to *point* us to the Messiah. They may, however, help or *confirm* his identity once we have him in view.

While Jesus met ancient overarching human expectations related to deity, many Jews of the time held a different inconsistence expectation related to the Messiah. Many Jews who expected a *spiritual* savior and redeemer became Christ followers, but Jews who expected a temporal king and conqueror (who would save the nation of Israel and restore the Jewish kingdom) did not. Jesus met the expectations of those who sought eternal, spiritual truth.

Christianity was in many ways more accessible to the pagan world. Christianity offered pagans not only the incorporeal God of the Jews, but also a god in human form who died and was resurrected. In addition, it announced the good news that the Messiah had come, whereas the Jews were still waiting for him. Christianity also dropped Jewish law, which had been a major obstacle to many prospective converts. The church adopted Paul’s position, as articulated in Romans 3:28, that now that Christ had come all God demanded was proper faith, and this faith ensured eternal salvation. Judaism, on the other hand, continued to demand adherence to its laws, and it focused much more on this world than on salvation.

Notwithstanding the preeminence of cultic observances, religious life during the Second Temple era increasingly emphasized personal duties to purify oneself, follow the Torah, and perform daily rites. Jews prayed in both public and private, beyond as well as within Jerusalem. Scripture study emerged as a principal function of a new local institution, the synagogue. Injunctions for holy living (like dietary prohibitions) multiplied. This shifting emphasis toward God's relationship with Jews individually, as opposed to Israel collectively, was manifested theologically by an intensified interest in the workings of God's justice and personal redemption, stimulating heated speculation about resurrection, free will, and eternal judgment. In some circles, apocalyptic (Greek, "revelation") theories explaining evil's persistence and Jews' subordination posited a final war between the righteous and the wicked in which the former would triumph, led by a messiah (mashiach, "anointed one") who was ordinarily conceived as a transcendently powerful human figure and occasionally as a cosmic one. Still, Jews coalesced around their rules of conduct, not their beliefs.

Although John’s prophecies are in the New Testament, we do not actually know whether he saw himself as a Christian. There is no doubt that John was a devoted follower of Jesus Christ, but he never actually uses the term “Christian”—probably because what we call Christianity had not yet become entirely separate from Judaism. Instead, like Peter, Paul, and other early followers of Jesus, John clearly saw himself as a Jew who had found the messiah.

Although many members of the Orthodox Jewish community opposed Zionism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was not because Orthodox leaders were averse to the idea of a return to a Jewish national home centred on Zion. Instead, the disagreement arose from the Orthodox belief that the return to Zion should come "at the end of days," when the Messiah would lead the Jews from the "four corners of the earth" back to their home. In this early period, Zionism was seen to be anticipating the end of days and usurping the role of the Messiah.

pre-Christian Judaism, including the disciples during Jesus’s lifetime, never envisaged the death of the Messiah. That is why they never thought of his resurrection, let alone an interim period between such events and the final consummation, during which he would be installed as the world’s true Lord while still waiting for that sovereign rule to take full effect. What

Thus, N. T. Wright says, “I think it highly unlikely that these verses are a sad commentary on the temporary nature of exorcisms. ... Rather, as Matthew’s closing sentence [v. 45], and Luke's context, seems to indicate, this is a kind of parable about Israel. Here is the link between the exorcisms and the overall mission of Jesus ... the exorcisms themselves were signs that this god wished to deliver Israel herself from the real enemy who is now pitted against her: satan.” Wright then proposes that the ‘house’ in the parable is the Temple and speculates on the nature of the ‘exorcism’: “If specific movements are in mind, we might perhaps think of the Maccabaean revolt, when ‘the house’ was ‘swept and put in order’; or perhaps the Pharisaic movement as a whole, attempting to cleanse the body and soul of Judaism by its zeal for a purity which in some ways reflected that of the Temple; or possibly Herod’s massive rebuilding programme, which produced a ‘house’ that was magnificent but in which (according to Jesus, and probably many of his contemporaries) YHWH [God] had no inclination to make his dwelling. ... Nothing short of a new inhabitation of ‘the house’ would do.” This new habitation of God was eventually understood to be in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful. As St. Paul wrote, “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16).

Going back to Moses Maimonides, he considers Jesus that prophet who was authorized by God to prepare the heathen world (as Messiah for the heathens) for the salvation expected by Israel. I judge this attitude of a Jew very positively because he uses the same category of thought as Christian theology. This says that the Hebrew Bible is a preparation for the Gospel, and Lapide says that Christianity is a preparation of the heathen world for the Jewish Messiah.

Religion may be as powerful an engine of identity as the nation; indeed, in some cultures, religious identity may be far more powerful than national identity. In integrist religious fundamentalisms, the violent promotion of the unity and dynamism of the faith may function very much like the violent promotion of the unity and dynamism of the nation. Some extreme forms of Orthodox Judaism regard the state of Israel as a blasphemy because it was established before Messiah came. Here religious integrism fully replaces national integrism. Fundamentalist Muslims offer little loyalty to the various secular Islamic states, whether presidential or monarchical. Islam is their nation. For Hindu fundamentalists, their religion is the focus of an intense attachment that the secular and pluralist Indian state does not succeed in offering. In such communities, a religious-based fascism is conceivable. After all, no two fascisms need be alike in their symbols and rhetoric, employing, as they do, the local patriotic repertory.

Humanity can save itself. It needs no Messiahs.

Hebrew for “poor, humble.” The “pious poor” of Judaism. After the Exile in Babylon (587 BC), a social class of Jews who returned were known as much for their commitment to the Torah* and the temple as for their economic poverty. Their situation led them to trust in God and to pray for him to establish his justice in the Land. Accordingly, this group was one in which hopes for the Messiah flourished

Mine is the only view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian scripture.

Judaism, again, was rejected when it rejected the Messiah.

Not a day passes in which God does not teach a new law in the heavenly academy. Just as the souls of the holy sages each teach in their own heavenly place, so God teaches in the Celestial Academy. It is said that God assigns the righteous a closer place to the divine glory than He does for the angels. And the angels are always asking them, "What has God taught you?" There are certain matters that must be left undecided until God comes and teaches the truth, for one day God will settle all unresolved questions of the Law. But God is not the only teacher in the Celestial Academy. Elijah and the Messiah also teach there. And until God delivers a final decision, it is Elijah's task to settle all doubts on ritual and judicial matters. So too does the Messiah elucidate the words of the Torah, and point out where the Law has been misconstrued.

Critics often style early Christians as anti-Semitic, but it was not the intent of early Christian believers to separate from Judaism or degrade Jews. They went into the synagogues seeking to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised one of Israel. The church became distinct sociologically when they were forced out of the synagogues and had to form their own communities. As these messages to Jews in the book of Acts show, the argument in the synagogue was that if one was a good Jew and believed God’s promises, then one would embrace Jesus as the promised Messiah and become complete as a Jew.

So which is more probable: That today's atheist apocalyptans are unique and right? Or that they are like their many predecessors—at the very least, in their motivations? If anything, the vehemence with which the believers in emergent complexity debunk all religion may betray their own creeping awareness of the religious underpinnings and precedents for their declarations. In fact, the concept of Armageddon first emerged in response to the invention of monotheism by the ancient Persian priest Zoroaster, around the tenth or eleventh century BCE. Until that time, the dominant religions maintained a pantheon of gods reigning in a cyclical precession along with the heavens, so there was little need for absolutes. As religions began focusing on a single god, things got a bit trickier. For if there is only one god, and that god has absolute power, then why do bad things happen? Why does evil still exist? If one's god is fighting for control of the universe against the gods of other people, then there's no problem. Just as in polytheism, the great achievements of one god can be undermined by the destructive acts of another. But what if a religion, such as Judaism of the First and Second Temple era, calls for one god and one god alone? How do its priests and followers explain the persistence of evil and suffering? They do it the same way Zoroaster did: by introducing time into the equation. The imperfection of the universe is a product of its incompleteness. There's only one true god, but he's not done yet. In the monotheist version, the precession of the gods was no longer a continuous cycle of seasonal deities or metaphors. It was nor a linear story with a clear endpoint in the victory of the one true and literal god. Once this happens, time can end. Creation is the Alpha, and the Return is the Omega. It's all good. This worked well enough to assuage the anxieties of both the civilization of the calendar and that of the clock. But what about us? Without time, without a future, how to we contend with the lingering imperfections in our reality? As members of a monotheist culture—however reluctant—we can't help but seek to apply its foundational framework to our current dilemma. The less aware we are of this process—or the more we refuse to admit its legacy in our construction of new models—the more vulnerable we become to its excesses. Repression and extremism are two sides of the same coin. In spite of their determination to avoid such constructs, even the most scientifically minded futurists apply the Alpha-Omega framework of messianic time to their upgraded apocalypse narratives. Emergence takes the place of the hand of God, mysteriously transforming a chaotic system into a self-organized one, with coherence and cooperation. Nobody seems able to explain how this actually happens.

Not surprisingly, Interfaithism denounces fundamentalism of any kind, but especially fundamentalist Christianity and Biblical Judaism. As I write, the World Council of Church is condemning Israel for defending itself after terrorists in Gaza launched hundreds of missiles aimed at targets all over Israel. We should suspect a malevolent, duplicitous agenda when Interfaithism mechanically turns a blind eye to terrorist activities of radical extremists, but categorically and harshly condemns Christians and Jews. Nevertheless, global Interfaithism bulldozes forward, forever trying to put a pretty face on its diabolical agenda of crushing all religions, purportedly in search of common ground for all faiths. These deluded globalists would have you believe that someday a one-size-fits-all religion will finally come into existence, and with it, a one-size-fit-all messiah. But on close inspection, their ethereal “global peace” mantras follow in the tradition of many of the world’s most evil and pagan occultists, such as Madame Helen Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, Aleister Crowley, Albert Pike, Robert Muller, and even “enlightened” and “illuminated