The Christianization of Zoroastrianism

Karaite Comments: To My Brother Yeshua (Jesus) Chapter 13

By Kahana :Myths and fables are all we seem to have passed down from us in the early centuries after Yeshua lived. But what is a myth if not the hopes and aspirations of a people manifested into a physical form which beckons to all to relinquish their doubts, abandon their cynicism and embrace a belief beyond normal human comprehension. And in many of our religious belief systems that is all we possess, a myth that has grown into a reality. Let me take the time to tell you about one such myth which manifested in Persia and grew well beyond the borders of that land. Some of you may recognize it, others actually believe in it, yet the majority will not even know of its origins and would have come to believe that its roots in our society were otherwise. As a Karaite I am free of it but you may not be so lucky as most have come to call it Christian but as you will soon see, it was anything but.

A Gift From Persia

The Persian Magi, the spiritual leaders of Zoroastrianism studied the universe endlessly, contemplating its contradictions, catastrophes and endless sufferings. They found it hard to believe that the truth lay in the Judaic writings that all these events were the manifestations of a singular God. That the Almighty, the Creator of the Universe, He who called himself the Loving God and the Wrathful God could be the perpetrator of history’s greatest disasters. In order to reconcile their belief in an Almighty God they found there could only be one solution; a second Kingdom. Where God reigned in a Kingdom of light and beauty from above in the heavens, another being ruled from the pits, a Kingdom of darkness and evil. The primal God above and a second entity that ruled the universe from below and the two were eternally set in opposition. And in this second kingdom, Satan ruled and the demons were born from its depths.
Desiring more than what rested beneath his hand, Satan invaded the Kingdom of Light and the war began in earnest between the two opposing forces, the Light and the Darkness. To beat back the armies of Satan, God created primal man but Satan’s forces began to overcome the armies of this lesser being and God was forced to rescue Man lest he be lost to Satan. But even after being rescued, Man had suffered grievously, several particles of his original Light gifted by God now replaced by five elements of the Dark. And thus man was set on a path that if he was to return to the Light, return to God, he must overcome the Darkness that now dwells within in an everlasting eternal struggle.
The first of these men to live, a combined existence of both light and dark particles was named Adam. Because of what Satan had done, Adam and his offspring were to be forever born in original sin. There was a woman named Eve, and because she was only created to be Adam’s companion she possessed less particles of light and therefore was more susceptible to the darkness. But God loved his creation of man and throughout the history of mankind would send his heavenly spirits in the form of prophets to guide and correct the corruption that now resided within man’s soul.

The Manichaean Universe

As strange as it may sound, what you have just read was not Christian. The beliefs were neither developed by Christian theologists nor were they practiced by the early Christians. In truth, the concept of two kingdoms in perpetual battle were so foreign to the early Christians that it was rejected wholeheartedly but Christianity had never faced a threat before like Mani, with his charisma, his gift to speak and his determination that exceeded that of any Church leader. Mani was born around 215 AD to a wealthy Persian family. He spent his early years travelling throughout the Persian Empire and into India where he encountered Buddhism. In his later years he headed west into the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire where he preached the religion that incorporated his original Zoroastrianism and all the beliefs he had acquired during his travels. He immediately had universal appeal, providing to the people that had always been familiar with Gods at war from their earlier Greek and Roman pantheon beliefs an easy bridge between their present Christian instruction and the religion of their past. Mani listed the prophets that they should believe in; Adam, Noah, Abraham, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Paul and himself whom he saw as the greatest of them all. In case you haven’t noticed, there is one prophet of significance missing from Mani’s list that being Moses. Moses represented everything contrary to what he was teaching to his new followers. To believe in Moses meant believing that all things good and bad did come from the one God of the Universe. To read Moses instruction meant that there was no such thing as Satan and his demons ruling from a secondary kingdom. To follow Moses meant that all men were born with free will to be either good or evil and were not tainted from birth. To Mani, he saw no hope in attracting the Jews to his new religion so he focused only on the susceptibility of the Christians knowing that they thirsted for a link to their old world of paganism.
But if man was born into a world of evil, a sinner from birth, Mani knew that he also had to provide a reward that mankind could strive for. He taught his followers if they learned and studied the prophets, strove against the evil within their souls, then if they were successful they would set the light free and would ascend to God. But if a man could not perform the purification within his lifetime then he would be sent back to live again until such time that he could release the light. And once all of mankind had succeeded in releasing the light then there would be the final apocalypse which would destroy the material universe and banish the Kingdom of Satan forever.

Something Familiar

Mani divided his followers into five levels. The first three levels were known as the Sons of Meekness. They were the Teachers, the Perfecti and the Electi. And only they would inherit the privilege of ascending to God after a single lifetime. The next level were the Administrators known as the Sons of Knowledge, comprising bishops and priests. The last level was known as the Sons of Understanding and they were the presbyters. The Sons of Meekness had additional restrictions, in that they had to be vegetarians, not engage in marriage or procreation as they had to remain pure if they were to ascend to God. The Sons of Knowledge did not have to endure the same restrictions. They had to follow several commandments including the forbidding of lying, adultery, murder, sloth, and doubt, along with keeping a certain number of fast days. As one can see, there are several parallels to the layering within the Manichean church to the establishment of the Catholic Church.
By the fourth century there already was a singular head, a Pope of the Manichean church. Many of the Marcionites that I had described in an earlier article adopted the Manichean beliefs and in fact by the end of the third century almost all of the Marcionite churches became Manichean. The appeal of the Manichean church exceeding anything witnessed before. It’s popularity amongst the aristocrats of the Roman Empire was immediate as it provided an easy transition from their pagan hierarchy to this new one, a far easier task than adopting the more man-centered concept of Mosaic law. One of the most notable personages to adopt the Manichean religion was St. Augustine who was actually one of the administrators in this church. Eventually St. Augustine left the Manichean church accusing it of teaching a falsehood of rival worlds of Light and Darkness in perpetual battle and that God was at constant war with Satan. In his new position within the Catholic Church he railed against these misguided beliefs enforcing the Mosaic belief that God was the only power in the universe and man was responsible for his own sinful ways, having nothing to do with an external power that forced him to commit wrong doings. How ironic that in spite of St. Augustine’s condemnation of Manichaeism in order to preserve the initial Judaic beliefs of the church, his protestations were eventually washed away in the tide as the Church raced to adopt Manichean beliefs.

The Ultimate Absurdity

By the fifth century, the Manichean belief system began to dominate the beliefs of Christians from all persuasions. So much so that the Catholic Church could see very little difference between their followers and those that claimed to be Manichaean. The primary difference was that the Manichaeans had their own Pope, their own elders, bishops, priests and lay clergy; a massive organization that bore no allegiance or recognition of the Church in Rome. How ironic that the Roman and Byzantine Churches would pronounce an edict condemning all Manichaeans to death, accusing them of heresy even though there existed by this time very little difference by this time between the beliefs of the two church systems. The decision was one of politics, of power, of greed and once again Christianity had been diverted from its true course without its followers having the slightest indication that the practices and beliefs that they now professed had nothing to do with the initial teachings of Yeshua whom they swore to follow. They had all become Manichaeans but they did not know it!

Misreading Isaiah

Some of the most interestings remarks I receive regarding my articles are from Rabbanites. They are also in many ways some of the most ludicrous. For example, one such protagonist wanted to argue that Karaites have offered little in comparison to the great achievements in Jewish literature by the Rabbis who were writing and compiling material (the Talmud) from the second century AD onwards. He then goes on to say that Karaites didn't write anything of renown until the eighth century AD, thereby supporting his argument that there were six centuries of Rabbinical literary achievements and even some Karaite writers suggested that their followers should read some of this Rabbinical documentation. That was the sum total of his argument for the superiority of Rabbinical Judaism. That it had six centuries of writing in advance of Karaism and that Karaites were urged to read that material. Whoah! I don't know if I can debate against such an advanced and credible argument (dripping sarcasm). First of all, the greatest of all Karaite scripture is the Torah. Yes, I will call that Karaite since it is the heart of Boethian and Zadokite teachings which were the forerunners of Karaism. And since Karaism relies only on the Tanach (original 24 books which include the Torah) unlike Rabbinic Judaism which relies more heavily on the Talmud which in many instances negates what is written in the Torah (as some of my articles have pointed out), then by all rights it can be claimed and supported that the original Karaite scriptures are from the twelfth century BC and therefore are far oldelr than these much later Rabbinic writings. As for Karaites reading Rabbinic documents, how fortunate that we practice a religion that is tolerant of other sects, and as Anan ben David, our spiritual founder encouraged us to do in the eight century, to read everything and then make our own personal decisions based on the Torah. My protagonist missed to point of how enlightened we Karaites are as contrasted to the narrow scope of the Rabbanites, whom still in their daily prayer of reciting the Amidah, curse the names of Boethus and Zakok and pray for the demise and destruction of their followers. Since Karaism was the natural evolution of the religious doctrines established by these two second century BC priests, it only naturally follows that these Rabbanites are also praying for our demise and destruction as Karaites. How enlightened is that?

But todays article is not about Rabbinical Jewish followers and their inability to see and comprehend that they are the anomoly that resulted within Judaism, not Karaites. What I'll be discussing today is again from the works of one of the great Karaite scholars and writers, Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, whom the Rabbanites would like to pretend was one of theirs but sadly for them, he was not and he openly declared himself a Karaite so that there would be no mistake when referring to his works. Just one more point to make for those Rabbanites that still think the weightiness of Rabbinical writing is justification for its superiority; it was never a matter of how much is written but a case of how well it was written. And in that regard, Troki's Hazuk Emunah is one of the great books of Jewish wisdom.
The Misunderstood Virgin

Much is made of Isaiah 7:14 by Christian scholars when they read, "Therefore the Lord shall give unto you a sign; behold the young woman is with child and she will bear a son and she will call his name Emanuel.(God is with us)" For most Christians this one verse is the evidence they claims supports their entire faith. They proclaim that this son born to a young virgin was none other than Jesus and that the prophet Isaiah had predicted his arrival six centuries earlier.

The first evidence of something not right should be the reference to 'the young woman' by the prophet. He used the word Almah which does not in any manner refer to a young woman that has not had sexual relations with a man. We find the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 24:14 when Eleazar is sent back east to find a wife for Isaac and is instructed that "there shall be a young woman who cometh out to draw water." There certainly was no reference to the girl's virginity, only her youthfulness. And just to emphasize the point further, we would hardly refer to a young man as being a virgin, so in 1 Samuel 17:58, when the prophet asks, "Whose son is this lad," he uses the word Alem which is the masculine form of the word Almah. And we would hardly suggest that when in Isaiah 54:4 the prophet says, "And thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth," that he was acutally saying, "And thou shalt forget the shame of they virginity," because he used the word Alumim to indicate youth. So as it should be obvious to my Messianic and Christian readers, the reference to a virgin giving birth was a total distortion of what was actually written.

That being the case, then what is 7:14 actually about? To provide that answer, it is necessary that one reads what precedes this statement. It wasn never intended to be taken out of context and only when read in conjuction with the earlier sentences of the chapter does it start to make sense. The chapter is about King Ahaz, the king of Judah, and what decisions he needed to make concerning the alliance by Pekah, King of Israel and Rezin, King of Syria who were preparing to attack Jerusalem. Isaiah went to Ahaz in order to tell him not to fear, God would be on his side. A sign would be given to Ahaz to show him that God would not abandon him and it was this child that would prove to be this sign. Ahaz, who saw the immediate danger on his borders would hardly care about a sign that only manifested itself six centuries later. The urgent danger was then and there and Ahaz needed to know that his kingdom was going to survive. So who was this young woman with child? It was none other than Isaiah's young wife. And when she gave birth he named the child Emmanuel and later also called his son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (Speed the plunder and hasten the spoil). Why the second name or title? Because Isaiah wanted to reassure the king that not only would his kingdom be saved but in turn both the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria would be crushed. As far as prophecies go, this one may have been self-fulfilling because at the same time Ahaz was being reassured by the prophet he was also being counselled to ally himself with Tiglath-Pilezar, King of Assyria. And as we know from Kings 16:9, Tiglath-Pilezar hearkened unto him and went up against Damascus and took it and slew Rezin. We also know form verse 30 that Hosea led a coup against Pekah shortly afterward, putting the king to death and reigning in his stead.

So now that you have a better historical perspective, read the prophecy again in Isaiah 7:14 and recognize what was actually being prophesized. When you appreciate that it had nothing to do with Jesus, you then have to reconcile all the other misunderstood concepts related to the virgin birth. Of course, there will be those that refuse to accept this interpretation even though it is crystal clear, arguing that we never have a reference from Isaiah that he first called his son Emmanuel. The only reference to naming the son is in the next chapter and then he is called by the Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz name and no other. The fact that he was called Emmanuel is implied from Isaiah 7:16, "for before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorest shall be forsaken of both the kings." It is obvious which two kings the prophet is referring to and there can be no question that the significance of naming him, "God is With Us," was to provide Ahaz with the confidence that he would withstand their assault. In the next chapter when describing the events around Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, he uses the same references of the child being too young to know what's happening, a clear indication that he's talking about one and the same child in both accounts.
Emmanuel

For those that still wish to believe that Isaiah 7:14 was still in reference to Jesus, then let's examine why the name Emmanuel was never applied to the son of Joseph and Mary. Firstly, the significance of God is With Us is entirely different from the meaning of Yeshua, or Saviour. In fact the indication of God's presence is not necessarily equivalent to his being a saviour in that capacity. In fact in Luke 2:21 we find at the naming ceremony following his circumcision, the baby was named Jesus because that was the name given to him by the angel while he was still in the womb. It is strange that had he been fulfilling the prophecy of the prophet Isaiah, that it did not say that he was named Emmanuel by the angel while he was in the womb. In that way they could have easily explained his being named Jesus after his birth without negating the possibility he was called differently at time of conception. But they didn't and in so doing they did negate any such possibility.

So with this in mind, let us reflect on whether it was ever intended by the early Christian followers that Jesus was to be seen as a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. It would appear that any linkage to Emmanuel was a much later development. And if there was no linkage intended then the entire concept of the virgin birth was not intentional either and merely something that was contrived at a much later date when certain individuals decided to take Christianity in an entirely different direction from its early leaders.