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.

Myths of the Second Century

Having begun the revelation of the myths and fables surrounding the birth of Christianity in my last article it is time to look more in depth at the development of Christianity as to what it has become now. It is a pale reflection of its beginnings and the essential Judaic teachings of its origins were intentionally stripped from it so that it could stand apart and bend to the will of those that controlled its destiny. Men in the Catholic orthodoxy that were not unlike the Rabbis that made a determined effort to mould both their respective religions into something other than intended and most importantly, to their own benefit. These changes were not by accident, were not normal evolution, nor were they done with the best intentions of its worshippers. But what is sadder is that with the wealth of historical information available, so many have not taken the time to read about their Christian origins. Had they merely taken the time and cherished advice of our Karaite sage and founder Anan ben David, they would have recognized that he was not only speaking to those of us that are Karaites but to people of all denominations and religions. His was a warning that to follow blindly is the greatest sin of all because it will do exactly the opposite what it claims it was designed to do. The preaching will be “Do not lead us unto evil” yet the outcome for any religion where it demands blind obedience, advises not to question its teachings or origins, and both assails and condemns any opinion that it deems contrary will do exactly that; it will lead you unto evil! The heritage of Christianity has been the eradication of any opinion that those in power deemed contrary. Silencing the heretics was the norm for hundreds of years. Yet heresy is from the Greek “haerens” which only means an act of choosing. So the execution of the heretics really meant eliminating anyone that wanted to make a free choice and that is the legacy of the rise of Christianity.

A Strange And Unusual Time

From a Karaite perspective what I personally find the most amazing about the second and third centuries AD is that you had two religious sects, both essentially Jewish in origin vying for the title of supreme monotheist but both willing to sacrifice the original teachings of the Torah. Let me explain if this statement has confounded you. Both Rabbanite Judaism and Christianity began writing furiously over this period two centuries to win over the hearts and minds of adherents whether established or new. The Rabbis began writing their Talmud feverishly and the Christians published a plethora of Gospels, both groups specifically designing their books to capture sayings, teachings, and histories, even if the subject material was speculative, inflammatory, and based solely on one’s own personal and therefore far from factual experiences. Whereas the Rabbanites were determined to catalogue their thoughts into one volume, even though it ended up in both a Palestinian and Babylonian version, the Christians made no attempt to consolidate their writings, keeping each manuscript distinct and separate. And therein lay the failure of the Rabbinates to win the race to the publishers and to their respective audience. The Talmud became a massive tome, unable to be finished for several hundred years and therefore never released to be mass circulated to the public and so introspective that it had practically no appeal to anyone but the rabbis themselves who enjoyed reading about their own endeavors, arguments, and congratulatory back patting efforts, whereas the Christian authors were able to circulate their small books quickly, often just as vellum manuscripts, suitable to be read by any individual and with stories bordering on the fantastical and supernatural thus very appealing and capturing an eager readership desiring to read about something other than mundane issues. There really wasn’t any contest when it came down to it. Even though most of these circulating Gospels were to be dismissed and discarded later when the Church decided to canonize the final version of the New Testament, it did so at a time that the general public had already been exposed to the multitude of books and their imaginations captured by the mythological status of the writing. The Talmud which was a never-ending exercise had none of the same mass appeal nor even had it been available early would it have been something the common person desired to read. Yet both of these massive documents, whether Talmud or New Testament had taken their intended audiences far afield from the Laws of Moses and the actual dictates of the Torah or Old Testament. And as I have pointed out numerous times in my articles, both these works of men were constantly in contradiction to the Torah and the teachings of Moses and were intentionally so. Of that as you will see in the next few paragraphs there could be now doubt!
Marcion Versus Montanus

“Who?” is the word you are probably uttering right now. Just two of the most important men in early Christian history and yet the majority reading this will have absolutely no idea who they were and what was their true significance. But both these men were the most prominent leaders in Christianity during the second century AD and shaped the Christianity that we know today. But because they possessed views outside the mainstream Catholic teachings they were later branded as Gnostics even though as I mentioned they were each responsible for giving Christianity its greatest surge in growth and popularity by attaining thousands upon thousands of adherents at that time and providing an ideological framework upon which the Church did build its current concepts thus eventually attaining mass appeal.

As hard as it may be to believe to Messianics and Christians today, during these first two centuries, to refer to the Catholic Church was to imply that those adhering to this view were either Jews or Judaized-Gentiles strongly leaning towards the Old Testament teachings as presented by the Jerusalem Church, initially under James and then his cousin Simon Cleophas. It was the Catholic Church that was entrenched with both these Judaizers and Old Testament exponents. Initially it saw itself as the defender against the rise of polytheistic ideologies that began to permeate the other churches throughout the empire. But as the old adage goes, “If you can’t beat ‘em then join ‘em,” especially when those others were growing faster, stronger and with far more determination than your own congregation could ever accomplish.

Marcion who lived between 130 and 180 AD considered his Church to be the only authentic one. The speed at which Marcion gained adherents was troublesome to the Catholic Church and Irenaeus wrote against them claiming they would eventually fractionate the early Christians beyond a point of recovery. It was not that Irenaeus condemned the teaching of Marcion only that this adversary did them better and in turn had better conversion results than the orthodox Catholics. Marcion’s message was simple. He wanted to build a church that could bring salvation but was not involved in the speculative and mystical ideas that seemed to have taken over the Christian church. Of interest is that Marcion taught that God had two natures. The wrathful, angry God of the Torah, and the kind loving God that had sent Jesus to save the world. But these two aspects of God were always constantly seesawing in what could be viewed as an eternal battle. Perhaps Marcion was familiar with the Yin and the Yang of eastern philosophy but he determined that it was the wrathful side of God that created the world and therefore all material creations were evil. That meant that man was evil as well but the pure side of God loved man and therefore sent part of himself in the form of a phantom body to live amongst man and die in order to save mankind. Quite interesting that the man that accused the traditional church of being too speculative and mystical was in fact the man that provided the spiritual concept of a non-human Jesus to Christianity in the first place. Marcion insisted that the only apostle that understood all of this was Paul and therefore he justified Paul’s abolition of the Law under the excuse that he was serving the Grace. In this manner Marcion claimed that Paul had done away with the wrathful God of the Old Testament and replaced him with worship of only the pure form of God as revealed in the New Testament. Having this narrow perspective meant that Marcion also had a very narrow canon of scripture which included the Gospel of Truth, which was a collection of sayings but not directly from Jesus, the four Gospels although Luke was an edited version, and the Acts of Paul. Hence he claimed that the only scriptures within his church emphasized the mercy of God whereas the Catholic Church was opposed to the teaching of mercy and therefore failed to comprehend true Christianity. Having condemned the material world as evil, Marcion preached that sex was also evil but only those that were Perfect needed to abstain from sex, whereas the rest of the followers could still engage in it and only when they were about to die would they be baptized. Salvation came through the love of God and the Old Testament was negated by this Loving God. As much as this view by Marcion would appear naïve and perhaps even childish, his teaching had a major impact on the Catholic Church and threatened its survival. So much so that Tertulian wrote, “The Marcionites make churches as wasps make nests.” This rapid expansion could not be stopped but it certainly could be absorbed. Catholic leaders met to see which of the Marcionist views should be incorporated into their own doctrines and in so doing they were to markedly reduce the impact by eliminating many of the differences.

Just as threatening were the Montanists which like the Marcionists wanted a return to what they called pure Christianity. Their approach was far more Old Testament, claiming that the Catholic Church was governed by men that had no true sanction by God and therefore their unethical and immoral behavior was not to be tolerated. The only laws that could be considered as truthful were those already passed down by God and his prophets. As you might have noticed, the concepts espoused by the Montanist were not unlike the Boethians and Zadokites of the same time against the Rabbis; in fact these Montanists were very Karaite in their comments. All we know of Montanus is that he appeared preaching in Phrygia around 156 AD. He dispelled the teaching of both the Rabbis and Catholic Church that the age of prophets was gone and that there would be no further prophets. In fact Montanus claimed that he himself was a chosen prophet of God. Montanus’ concept of the Holy Spirit was that it was sent down by God to enter the bodies of his chosen prophets. Therefore any that spoke the word of God were engaged by the Holy Spirit and Yeshua was one such man. Montanus believed that all scriptures were the word of God and therefore he maintained that in his Church all doctrines were acceptable, none were to be repudiated but God’s only requirement was that the followers maintained a high level of morality, fasted regularly, and had strict marriage laws. But as his followers pursued their beliefs, Montanus expected them to abandon the daily world and separate themselves into religious communes. This was in direct contradiction with the Catholic Church that decided its followers should maintain their everyday lives and didn’t need to separate themselves from Roman life in order to become holy.

By the end of the second century it appeared that the Montanists would become the dominant sect of Christianity. The Catholic Church reacted as it had done so many times before, labeling the Montanists as heretics, excommunicating the lot, and condemning their prophets to either banishment or death. This dogma of branding anything that opposed them as heretics was exactly the institutionalized corruption that the Montanists were opposed to. There considerable threat forced those leaders in the Catholic Church to move closer to the reigning powers in Rome. By emphasizing that the Catholic Church supported the Roman authorities and advised its followers to contribute as part of everyday society, they were able to demonstrate the danger represented by a Montanist Church that encouraged its members to withdraw from society and become separate. It didn’t take much encouragement for the Roman authorities to join in the condemnation of the Montanists and use them for their entertainment in the coliseums. Although Christian history will talk about the martyrs fed to the lions and slaughtered in gladiatorial exhibits, it fails to comment that it was Montanists providing this entertainment while a Catholic elite grew closer to the Emperor and 100 years later actually was proclaimed as the one and only Christianity of the Empire.

The Best And Worst

Having survived the century of turmoil and beating back those breakaway sects that condemned it, the Catholic Church, soon to be the State Church of the Empire, recognized that the Marcionists and Montanists had been popular for two entirely antithecal reasons. The first gained popularity by emphasizing the spiritual nature of Jesus and therefore won over the hearts and minds of a people seeking far more than the strict laws that evolved from the Torah.

The latter, the Montanists gained their popularity by emphasizing the freedom of choice, the fact that God intercedes in the world through his prophets and that survival meant separation from the daily life of the Empire. From the general description, they were not very unlike the Jews that still represented a large portion of the eastern populations.

And therein lay the solution that would become the hallmark of the Church for a couple of thousand years. By adopting Marcion’s teachings of the uniqueness of Christianity, the spiritual nature of Jesus and the rejection of all the old laws that were Jewish or Old Testamental they could create a distinct separation between themselves and their original beliefs. And by categorizing the Montanists as nothing more than Christians practicing a Jewish mode of life, they could again emphasize that separation and at the same time focus the Empire’s distrust on any people that were determined to remain separate, especially the Jews. In doing so, the Catholic leaders gained the trust of the Empire and were to eventually to take over the operation of the empire itself in the form of the Holy Roman Empire where the power to invest kings and emperors suddenly lay within their Church.

It was a learning process that would not have been possible if it had not been for the advent of both the Marcionists and Montanists. In a very short time they had gained all the myths and fables necessary to reshape the Catholic Church into the image of bishops; men seeking power at the cost of its heritage. It would have to go through one more phase before the transition was complete. That involved the canonization of the New Testament and finalization of its arrangement with the Empire in the sharing of power. That wouldn’t happen to the fourth century and will be the topic of discussion for the next article.

Predictions of a Worldwide Diaspora

It has often been said by Christian scholars that the dispersal of the Jews was God’s final judgment against us and that in so doing he has withdrawn his love and protection for his chosen people. It is a fallacious argument for many reasons that will be discussed in the body of this article, but nonetheless, these scholars persist in their argument based on what they claim is scriptural absence. But as a word of caution, Christian scholars should have never undertaken the debate with a Karaite, as Karaism's understanding of the Torah and Tanach has always been far more astute than our Rabbanite brethren that rely more often on Talmudic lore. Scriptural absence is a unique argument that goes as follows; If it is not recorded as such, then any statement that I make subsequently cannot be argued against since there is no scriptural record by which to dispute my statement. To quickly demonstrate the error of such an argument one merely has to point out that even though in the Decalogue there is no statement of “Thou shall not maim or torture,” a reasonable man would understand that just because God pointed out the extreme case to Moses of murder did not mean that He had no concern for the lesser acts of man’s inhumanity. But by these scholars’ argument, they have claimed that since the prophetic books of the Tanach speak only of the conquest by the Babylonians and Persians but say nothing of the Romans, then there could be no continuation of Jewish history following the Persian period without acknowledging that it was the end of the pre-Messianic era and that meant the Messiah had definitely come during the Roman occupation as all the works of the prophets had been fulfilled at the time of the second Temple. To support their argument they quote Matthew 11:13 where he states, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Isaac ben Abraham of Troki dealt with this argument quite thoroughly and there’s very little I can add to his statements which are quite extensive and therefore for purposes of reader’s attention spans I will paraphrase to a large degree.

The Universal Disperal is Predicted

Troki’s first salvo in return was to quote Psalm 147:19-20 in order to demonstrate that God’s intentions to the end of time were not to be fully disclosed in scripture or by prophecy, where it say that, “He declareth his word unto Jacob, His statutes and His judgments unto Israel. He has not dealt so with any other nation, nor has He made known His judgments unto them.” Clearly God is forewarning all of us not to heed the words of Christian scholars because he has not provided them with any insight nor does He even recognize them.

But Troki was not prepared to accept the statement that the scriptures did not discuss the dispersal following the Roman occupation. He cited Deuteronomy 28:64 as his proof that God did foresee the event but since it was not in the books of prophecy, the Christian scholars had overlooked its presence. It reads, “And the Lord shall scatter thee among all the people, from the one end of the earth unto the other.” Until the advent of the Roman Empire, no other civilization could lay claim to conquering the known world. And since today’s modern society is an extension of the Roman Empire, having adopted much of its legal systems, language, alphabet, etc. then the scattering across the globe was only possible following this particular empire. Similarly, Troki uses Deuteronomy 3:3 to support his claim that the Roman dispersal was predicted. “That then the Lord they God will turn thy captivity…and gather thee from all the nations whither the Lord they God has scattered thee.” Clearly this line would not apply to the Babylonian captivity since the Jews had only been exiled to Babylon and not scattered about the world. The reference had to clearly be made in regards to an ingathering from a worldwide Diaspora and not a singular Mesopotamian one.

The Temporary Exile

Upon hearing his argument, the Christian scholars challenged that Leviticus 26:38 outweighed all of his prior arguments and comments. In this verse we read, “And ye shall be lost among the gentiles and the land of your enemies shall consume you.” But this was neither a total loss nor an irrevocable one. Troki explained that the Hebrew word used for loss, ABAD, was purposely intended to infer a temporary state of despair. Similar to its use in Isaiah 27:13 where the ‘lost’ ones of Assyria and Egypt will also return. Furthermore he argued it would make no sense that six sentences later in Leviticus 26:44 God says, “And even this, when they shall be in the land of their enemies, I shall not reject them nor abhor them so as to consume them and break my covenant with them, for I am the Lord their God.” So as Troki clearly points out, the act of being lost was not permanent and God wished to clearly point this out within the same chapter and paragraph. But more importantly I would suggest that we pay attention to the use of the word ‘consume’. What is meant by the particular use of this word? When one consumes food it is metabolized and absorbed. It becomes part of the host which ate it and therefore continues on but in a new form. The reference therefore was not to a cessation but assimilation. And clearly in the second verse from Leviticus it is evident that God does not wish the term consumption to be viewed as a finality. For even those that have become assimilated will not be abhorred or rejected. Like the wayward child, God as parent will not break his word to them and continues to love them.

An Everlasting Promise
Troki quotes Deuteronomy 4:30-31 which states, “When thou art in tribulation and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, thou shalt turn to the Lord they God and be obedient unto His voice. For the Lord they God is a merciful God and He will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which He swore unto them.” That being the case then the promise of the Lord was designed to outlast the exiles, no matter how many, how often or how distant the dispersals may have been. There was no expiry date as the Christian scholars tried to argue, nor was the promise ever to be withdrawn. As for the prophets, Isaiah does speak of the present time dispersal in 43:5-6 where the prophet says, “Fear not for I am with thee; I will bring they seed from the East, and gather thee from the West. I will say unto the North give up and to the South keep not back. Bring my sons from far and my daughters from the end of the earth.” Since the distribution of Jews to the four corners of the world did not take place until long after the prophets death, and more appropriately, not until long after the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans, his statement had to do with events long after Jesus as well. We could not be any further dispersed than we are now, pockets of us living in practically every country on the globe.

Once again, it was a Karaite that made the most successful arguments against these Christian Scholars in the sixteent century and once again it is a Karaite that reminds you that was true in Troki's time is even truer now.

Avrom Aryeh-Zuk Kahana

Karaite rejection of 'The Rejection of the Jews'

I have been watching an amazing phenomenum take place since I began this series of related articles. Though primarily a polemic highlighting the mistaken path taken by Messianic Jews, I now find that the series is in fact being linked to a number of Messianic and Christian sites that have focused on the issues raised in my articles regarding the Rabbinic philosophies and practices that led to the development of Christianity as justification for their own beliefs. How the interpretation of Messianic support can be misconstrued or distilled from such a polemic is beyond my comprehension. The polarization 180 degrees from the actual message is in itself a testimony to the human mind of how it can twist black and white into shades of grey as long as the blurring of the lines suits their purpose. Let me make it perfectly clear that as a Karaite my perspective is the antithesis of the Rabbanite view on such matters and therefore far from advocating their early distortions of messianic myth and legend that eventually realized as Christianity, I am in fact negating their arguments and therefore proposing that Christianity was the result of error and misinterpretation. This view is far from supporting the validity of beliefs in Jesus as messiah. I would hope that those linking or quotiing from my site would express the viewpoint that although early Pharisaic beliefs and the resultant Rabbanite faith would appear to support the advent of Christianity, it was in fact these early rabbinic Jewish beliefs that were nothing more than creative fabrications from which stemmed the later religion. Now that I hope that point is clear, we will examine Isaac ben Abraham of Troki's rational arguments of why Jesus was not the Messiah.

Rejection of Israel

One of the primary arguments made by Christian theologians is that God rejected Israel and then provided his love and protection to the Gentiles that held their faith in Jesus. The reason for His rejection of Israel was that the Jews refused to listen to the teachings of Jesus but went even further by executing judgment upon the Christian Messiah. These arguments would only hold water if one was to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was the Messiah in the first place and since that is not the case, then how can there be any rejection for that which was not proven? But Isaac ben Abraham of Troki adopted a different approach. His was to look at who really rejected Jesus and a such he wrote:

Troki argued in the Hazuk Amunah that the concept of rejection of Israel never existed in the early Church. In fact, their argument of proof that necessitated that the Gentiles accepted Jesus as the messiah and that they acknowledge and put their faith in him for he suffered martyrdom for their sake did not occur until almost 300 years after his death when Constantine adopted the Christian faith for the Roman Empire. Prior to that, it was the Gentiles that persecuted and killed many of those proposing the Christian faith. So in fact he argued it was the Gentiles whom rejected Jesus until such time a political-theological alliance was created that had little to do with the teachings that they claimed the Jews rejected. Following Constantine's death, his son Constantine even rejected the established Christian articles of faith and adopted the Arian views, as did Julian that followed him. This refutation of Jesus's teachings was continuous throughout time by many that professed to be true adherants. Therefore Troki concludes, "How can they boast to be he preferred nation, selected in reward of their homage to Jesus, or how can they assume the name of Christians, since there exists among them no longer any observer of the Mosaical precepts which Jesus himself declared inviolable? Besides they deviate from his statutes by adding to and diminishing from the dictates of the Gospel, while he pronounced severe maledictions against those who should venture to add or to diminish from his word."

In addition to Troki's rebuttal, I would like to add my own comments regarding the 'Rejection of the Jewish Nation.' Firstly, as you will notice, I do use the term nation and will argue that the Jewish people are far more than a population of religious practitioners. The nation had its origin three thousand years ago and in spite of its dispersion, persecution, and partial extermination it has held together without disappearing from the annals of history. Since its orgin was unique to a particular set of people, and it generated its numbers through procreation within that same populace, then not only has it developed a distinct genetic profile but also cultural, historical, and legal subsets that are distinct from other populations, therefore meeting the defined requirements for a national heritage. Yes, over time converts have adopted Judaism and entered the population but they were of a such minute number their dilution effect would be equivalent to that of adding a glass of water to the ocean.

So as a distinct entity or nation as I have argued, we must examine the historical facts. Over the three thousand years of its existence, it has survived and outlived the dominations, persecutions, subjugations, assimilations and exterminations of the Egyptians, Hittites, Hurians, Canaanites, Philistines, Akkadians, Scythians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Parthians, Romans, Sassanids, Caliphates, Byzantians, Ottomans and Europeans. Empires and nations of far greater size, worldly significance and influence. Whereas all other nations fell and were crushed under their heels, even these world dominating empires all faded over time until even their historical memories were practically lost from mankind, one small and insignificant nation survived. Once perhaps luck, twice possibly strategic intelligence, but to survive time and time again against impossible odds and never suffer extinction through natural attrition defies the human spirit. The probability to outlast the historical, socialogical and theological impacts of all these far greater powers would be a mathematical impossibility or conundrum to calcualate. Only through the hand of God could it have been possible and God's hand is only extended to those that he never rejected.

Third Letter to My Christian Brethren

Misguided Intent

As was presented in Letter 2, the origins of Christianity were and are deeply rooted in Jewish Rabbinical teachings. The fact that these teachings bordered on the heretical and were not rooted in the Torah mattered little to these rabbinical scholars that pursued their own agenda. And therein lies the problem, the great rift between Rabbanites and Karaites, for it was this agenda of these so-called learned men that caused the greatest threats to the continued existence of Judaism. To understand this statement, one must fully appreciate the reasoning behind the development of the Messiah mythos that the rabbis fabricated and then foisted upon the Jewish people. To create an entirely new legend concerning a supernatural hero that pre-existed the beginning of time, that was superior to the angels and therefore next in line to God, who would suffer at the hands of his own people, yet never abandon them by taking on their sins and ultimately defeating their enemies, a doctrine which runs contrary to the Torah could only have been undertaken if the rabbis felt the reason for their heresy far outweighed the consequences. Even as these rabbis prepared this doctrine, one of their early leaders grew concerned. Hillel, probably the greatest sage of their Pharisaic brotherhood, and the man they esteem as the progenitor of their kind saw the fine line upon which they tread and he was gravely concerned. In Sanhedrin 98b of the Talmud, it is recorded that Hillel tried to put an end to their misguided philosophy by telling them that the Messiah had already come and gone. That he was the son of King Hezekiah and nothing more than a divinely inspired human. Unfortunately, although his students and followers clung to every other word he had to say, in this case they chose to ignore him, not willing to abandon their ‘divine being’ heresy. But the real question was why these supposedly intelligent men felt they needed to create this mythological hero in the first place and the answer lies in the fact that it was a belief 180 degrees from what was taught by the Zadokites who’s rulings reigned supreme at the time. Therefore their motivation was to challenged the existing infrastructure, to embarrass those that were holding on to the reins of power and to ultimately win over the hearts and minds of the people by promising them something better than what was being offered by the Sadducees but thinking that they would never have to deliver on their promises. To the Sadducees, the origins of the Messiah were a matter of fact. One would come from the House of Aaron, the other from the House of David. Neither divine by birth, only divinely inspired. Two very human figures that happened to be from the two houses that the Rabbis despised greatly and were more than happy to record their hatred for these various families in their Talmud. Therefore, even though Hillel was still insisting the Messiah would be from the line of the royal family, or had already been, the rabbis refused to accept this. Their messiah could not be tainted by either of these two families that were accursed in their minds; hence the creationist myth that the messiah was a godling spirit that existed from the beginning of the universe. Of course, having an entity greater than the angels is a direct contravention of the commandment, “Thou shall have no other God but me,” but the rabbis were willing to promote this sacrilege as long as they could eliminate the authority of the royal and priestly houses. As for the suffering that the suffering servant will endure at the hands of his enemies as outlined in Isaiah, the rabbis transformed this metaphor of Israel into a physical punishment borne by the messiah. Rashi was not the first to tell them that they were wrong but they would not listen. As long as they could convince the people that the ‘real’ messiah would suffer physically for their sins, then they could also point at members of the two aristocratic families and say, “See, none of them even knows what it is to suffer as they live in the lap of luxury; No way that they could be the progenitors of the messiah.” That was their sole reasoning, their only purpose in transforming the edicts of the Torah into the folktales of the messiah that inhabited their Talmud. Self-serving, self-empowering, and most of all providing revenge for what they considered several hundred years of suffering at the hands of these aristocratic families.

Revelations of Paul

The problem with creating myths is that somewhere, someplace, sometime, someone sees them as being true. As Saul admits, he considered himself a ‘good’ student of Rabbi Gamaliel. Though the rabbis immediately disclaimed him as one of their own, his statement was most likely correct. He was their perfect student, and for the most part their perfect soldier until he recognized a serious flaw in their teachings that contradicted sharply with their practices. In essence, “a do as we tell you but not as we preach,” attitude to which Saul eventually took exception and became Paul as a result. As a good little soldier for his Pharisaic brotherhood, Saul set out on a mission to harass and persecute the followers of Yeshua, taking his mission all the way to Syria, well beyond any actual jurisdiction that the rabbis had. Stoning, flogging, and clubbing were all in a good day’s work and he had no concerns if the victims of his persecutions should die in the process. But along the way he had his revelation; some will call it a stroke, Christian adherents will say it was the appearance of Yeshua, I consider it to be the light bulb finally going off in his head which resulted in a mental breakdown during which he had to rebuild the pieces of his life. Whatever the explanation, Saul (Paul) realized that the orders he followed were in direct contradiction of his rabbinical training. He understood that he was instructed to beat these heretics but in doing so he knew that their practices and beliefs were not in contradiction to the rabbinical teachings of the soon to be written Talmud. Following a mystical teacher with possibly a divine mission was certainly part of the rabbinic messiah tradition. Questions regarding his birth weren’t questions at all according to the rabbinic dogma. Since the messiah described by the rabbis was not born human but a spirit conceived at the creation, then how could there be any heresy if the claimant to the throne of the messiah was believed by his followers to be born via Immaculate Conception? And if his genealogy was not precisely that of either aristocratic house, then that suited the rabbis well since they were insistent that as a godling he could not be the descendant of their despised enemies, the Sadducees or Asmoneans (non-Davidic). But furthermore, the rejection of Yeshua by the majority of the Jews was exactly how the rabbis portrayed the Messiah would be received by those that he had come to serve and save. As a true rabbinical student, Saul was left with no other choice but to conclude that this Yeshua must have been the Messiah the rabbis were expecting. For him to deny that would be a denial of everything he had been taught in the school of Gamaliel. Abandoning his fuller’s club, he took up the mantle of the supreme apostle and began to preach the religion of this rabbinic messiah. At first the rabbis paid little attention to him but soon they were to be haunted by their own words and teachings that would create an entirely new civilization to supplant that which they had attempted to foist upon the uneducated masses.

The Dilemma

What Paul experienced was the dilemma of conscience that all rabbis since the time of their formation have had to face. It’s one thing to create an entire mythos as a vehicle of pronouncing your own superiority over your adversaries and proclaim that your teachings are the only ones of relevance as you attempt to seize the power and authority from those that were legitimately invested with them. But it’s an entirely different matter when you’re suddenly faced with the monster you have created. It would seem that these monsters are a constant plague of the Rabbanites. As detailed in Shadows of Trinity (http://www.eloquentbooks.com/ShadowsOfTrinity.html) these monsters having rabbinic origins have always become the bane of Jewish existence. With two thousand years of making the same mistake over and over again, one would think the rabbis would learn their folly but admitting their mistakes is not one of their more noble characteristics. So when faced with the reality of Yeshua, and the fact that he appeared to meet the criteria that they had laid out for their version of the Messiah, they only had two choices. One was either to admit that they were mistaken, and all their teachings were contrary to the Torah and therefore they had sinned, or else they had to acknowledge that Yeshua was their rabbinic messiah. The fact that they were manipulated by the Sadducees into this situation as explained in The Caiaphas Letters (http://legendsofthekahana.webs.com/3onthecharts.htm) meant that either way they would have diminished themselves and resigned the authority they had gained over the centuries by battling the Sadducees for theological supremacy. What had not been anticipated was that they would take the third option, one which didn’t even exist. They simply denied Yeshua. Without justification, without explanation, they expanded and altered their messiah mythology, declaring that the true messiah would be from the Tribes of Joseph, he would be a warrior, and he would lead the heavenly host in the battle of Armageddon against Aramilius. Since Yeshua could not claim to have fulfilled any of these obligations, then he could not possibly be their messiah. The transition from suffering servant to military conqueror became the new curriculum vitae for their savior and the separation between the Zadokite messiah of the Torah and that of the Rabbanites became even wider. Clever as the rabbis thought they were in escaping from the snare that they themselves had set, they were not smart enough to realize that they had created an entirely new trap that would engulf them. And this time the danger of their continued existence was far greater than the threat from the widely expanding Christian religion.

Expectations of Mohammed

As a young caravan driver travelling the length and breadth of Judea, Galilee and Samaria, Mohammed was very familiar with the Messianic legends of his time. He knew of the story of Yeshua as well and the reasons for his rejection. What most people may not realize was that Mohammed first went to the Jews, explaining that he would fulfill their requirements for the messiahship and that they would be delivered by his sword arm. Just as Yeshua met the initial set of criteria, Mohammed knew that he met the requirements of this second set. He was already upon a path of conquest and determined to bring about the final battle for domination of the world. He declared to the Jews of every town that he was the fulfillment of their prophecies. He even went as far to claim that he represented the Messiah ben Joseph so that he would fulfill all the new criteria that the rabbis had created for this messiah. How he did so was quite unique, since he could not establish a blood link to Joseph. Taken from Muhammad in World Scriptures (Vol. 2) by Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, Mohammed’s explanation does border on the genius in that he calculated he could prove his connection to Joseph through ‘equivalence’. He claimed the following, “That he, like Joseph would be the target of all cruelties by his brothers (Qur’an 12:102).” Furthermore, whereas Jacob said to Joseph that he would be chosen, the Qur’an says that Mohammed was granted eminence by the Lord. Drawing conclusions that Jacob would have warned Joseph not to tell his brothers about his visions, the Qur’an also mentions that Mohammed was warned that people would do mischief towards him once they heard his revelation. Mohammed also stated that Jacob had told Joseph that God would make his favour complete to him, and similarly Mohammed too was apprised of his triumph in the early revelations. Since Joseph had been sold by his brethren to Ishmaelite traders and Mohammed was often slandered as the son of a handmaid, referring to Hagar, the concubine of Abraham, he extended this slur to include all Ishmaelites and therefore by right of purchase he obtained everything that belonged to Joseph. Thusly, both Joseph and himself were able to interpret the signs sent by God. Just as Joseph was placed in prison, Mohammed claimed he was besieged in Shi’b of Abu Talib, which for a time became his prison. And just like Joseph who preached to his companions in prison, Mohammed did the same to Banu Hashim in Shi’b. Mohammed also explained that the plague of famine played a major role in both their lives; seven years in Egypt for Joseph and seven years in Makka for Mohammed. And just like Joseph who received honours following his release from prison, Mohammed similarly received honours from the Jews at Madina. In the end, Joseph’s brothers had to beg for mercy from him and the same happened at Makka where Mohammed’s persecutors had to beg for mercy from him. Joseph in his generosity told his brothers that there would be no reproof against them that day. Mohammed intentionally used these same words when he vanquished the Meccans when he conquered their city. And in the end, Joseph became a ruler in Egypt, just in the same way that Mohammed became a ruler at Madina.

The final icing on the cake that Mohammed used was Genesis 49:10, the same sentence that the rabbis used to explain how they could reassign the messiahship from the houses of Aaron and David. For in that Old Testament sentence it states then in the final days the sceptre of Judah and the Law Giving by Aaron will be wrested away with the coming of Shiloh. Since Shiloh was a city within the boundaries of the tribes of Joseph, the rabbis concluded that the messiah would be from Joseph. But both Christianity and Islam claimed it meant that the messiahship would fall to an outsider, Shiloh referring more to the hinterlands. But what exactly was the meaning of Shiloh, we still do not know. But clearly it did not mean that the messiah would come from Joseph. That much I can tell you with certainty. I have my suspicions as to its meaning but that will be for another day. More importantly, the situations that arose, both with Paul and Mohammed were entirely the result of the political machinations of these rabbis, bent on seizing power and creating the litany of legends and myths to support their claims. Too short sighted to recognize the repercussions of their meddling ways, and constantly opening the right to claim messiahship to those that simply believed all they had to do was fulfil the dictates that the rabbis had themselves created, crisis situations arose not only once but twice. And the deeper the rabbis dug this quagmire for themselves, the worse the situation grew for the Jews, because each time these claimants were rejected, they vented their anger and frustration against the Jewish people. Because of their stubbornness, the rabbis were not prepared to explain that they had merely fabricated the criteria for their coming messiah and so thousands upon thousands had to die for their folly and arrogance. Even in the Talmud there are three separate rabbis that are quoted saying that they long for the coming of the Messiah, but definitely do not want him to come in their lifetime. Why, you might ask? Because that would mean that they would have to give up their power and resign their authority, and even after all the death and destruction they had caused, they were still not prepared to do that.

The Anguish of Anan

Viewing the damage created by the rabbis through their Talmudic tales and messianic mythologies, Anan ben David in the 8th century knew that the time had come to reassert the old beliefs in order to correct the runaway train that Judaism had become. He knew that the Exilarchate was not only necessary for the fulfillment of the original Zadokite messianic beliefs because of its descent from the House of David but over the intervening centuries it had intermarried with the House of Aaron so many times over that there was a strong paternal descendancy from that family as well. The problem was that over the years the Rabbanites had wrestled more and more of the Exilarch’s power and authority away until the position was little more than a figurehead and incapable of fulfilling its destiny and the original messiah concept from the Torah had become a distorted, corrupted mess due to rabbinic interference. Both Christianity and Islam were now flourishing based on the false messianic mythos established by the Rabbanites and both were growing geometrically with every accusation they made that the Jews had abandoned their own beliefs unwilling to acknowledge either of these other religions’ claims of having fulfilled their precepts. Anan didn’t need to be in possession of prophetic insight to understand what that meant to the future of Judaism as it was about to be eclipsed by two tidal waves that had sprung from an ocean of inaccurate theological arguments. In order to restore the dominance of the Exilarch, the rabbis knew that meant Anan was seeking the means of removal of their power and authority that they had worked so hard to contest and gain over the preceding centuries. They were definitely not prepared to let that happen even though by that time they had proven that they could abuse the privileges of power as badly as any despot. Using their ill-gotten censuring authority that had been granted to them by the Caliph as representatives of a recognized state religion the rabbis laid charges against Anan ben David that he was attempting to interfere with their governance, committed heresy by declaring their doctrine to be false, and was trying to assert himself as an actual monarch rather than satrap which placed him in opposition to the Caliph. Serious charges which immediately resulted in his arrest and imprisonment for a considerable length of time, some reports saying as long as five years.

Five years in a cell gives a man an opportunity to think deeply on matters and Anan put his time to good use. Both Christianity and Islam as I have indicated were based on distorted prophecies and false doctrines. He didn’t bother to focus on either of those upstart religions deciding that was the Rabbanites problem and that they would have to deal with them; he instead would restore the original Zadokite doctrines; those messianic beliefs that had been firmly established within the Torah and were immutable. Dismissing the concept of the appearance of the messiah at the beginning of creation, Anan re-established the original doctrine that the two messiahs will come when the need arises. Therefore there was no premeditation, only a responsive action by God when necessary. That they were to be men, nothing more, favored by God, gifted by God, and descended from the Houses of Aaron and David was also a fact from the Torah. Their purpose was/is not to save the Jewish people by defeating their enemies through battle but by turning their enemies into brothers by teaching them the true path to God the dawn of a new age would result. The Moreh Tsedek or Righteous Teacher as messiah was restored as had been the original belief. So whereas the Rabbanites saw the coming of the messiah as salvation, Anan looked at the Torah scriptures and saw the coming of the messiahs as a reward. Just as the Rabbanites viewed messianic times as the End of Days, Anan’s view taken from the Torah was that it was the ‘Beginning of Days.’ Not just a reward for the Jews but for all of humanity. Whereas the rabbis looked at the End of Days with trepidation, hoping to avoid its onset as long as possible, Anan taught that the coming of the Messiahs should be welcomed openly and if it could be hastened, then all the better. And once the Messiahs come, then the Jews from the Diaspora would be gathered from the four corners of the globe and returned to Israel so that all would be as it was originally described in the Torah.

There is some discussion by those that assert that perhaps Anan ben David saw himself as one of the two Messiahs and that his migration to Jerusalem was his attempt to encourage other Jews to migrate and thereby hasten the messianic age. He certainly saw himself as a teacher and viewed his mission as being righteous. His family genealogy was correct, and he did manage to restore the faith to many of the Jews. But if it was his thinking, then he failed to take into account that the Messiah will not know that he is the messiah. So the real messiah will not ever claim to be the messiah because he simply will not know. The honor of messiahship will be thrust upon him by those that follow once he has achieved the end goal. And the end goal is one in which all of mankind adopts the one religion, that being the original faith of the Jews, and a feat of that magnitude can only be achieved by the Moreh Tsedek.


The Moreh Tsedek

The Righteous Teacher of Karaism is not to be confused with the same person or title used by the Essene community in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The person to bear this title from Karaite interpretations of the Torah will be the Messiah that will ultimately change the world and bring about the age of peace. As his title would ascribe, he will not do it through war, or bloodshed, or even force. But with a barely audible whisper that will eventually grow into a thunderous rumble that will silence all other voices. His sword is his pen, his army is his insight and he will change the world not through bloodshed but through a searing vision of a better place. He will not only know the answers to all of the questions that have remained unanswerable from Torah Law but more importantly, he will know what questions still need to be asked. The Moreh Tzedek will be ignored, chastised and ridiculed in the beginning but he will never abandon his mission, continually bearing the scorn of his own people until the time that the first of them listen to his words. They will accuse him of every conceivable sin, and he may in truth have committed them all since it is written that he will take upon himself the sins of the people, but it will never corrupt him and he will find repentance and forgiveness directly from God. Because it is also written that in his life he will need to become the lowest of men, looked down upon by others, despised and his soul considered ugly to look upon, in order to ascend to the pinnacle of mankind, he knows that whatever sins he may commit are already anticipated and necessary to fulfill his destiny. And then it will happen. One will become ten, then a thousand, a million and finally six and a half billion. His words will conquer their hearts, their minds and eventually their souls. All that had been written in the Torah will come to pass and the blessings of the Lord shall be upon us all.

Second Karaite Letter to My Christian Brethren

The Origins

As I mentioned in Part 1, I believe emphatically that without the misguided interpretations of the Rabbis as they fought over every word in the Torah in order to create their Talmud in order to justify their own existence, there would have been no Christianity. They were directly responsible for it doctrines, teachings and of course Yeshua. Making such a statement obviously requires a structural support built on facts and documents in order to withstand skeptical scrutiny. And that is what Part 2 of this dissertation will do; it will provide the facts, the sources, the Rabbis' own words that resulted in what we call today, Christianity. Had these self-proclaimed wisemen not engaged in their fruitless labours of deciphering God's own words and teachings in order to suit their own passions and desires, we would not have seen the splintering of Judaism into daughter religions. We would not have seen the advent and rise of Christianity and Islam. We would not have endured two thousand years of persecution by those that proclaimed themselves as the inheritors of God's blessings and therefore dedicated to the extermination of those that went by the title of 'chosen' previously. Yes, the world would have been a much different place had these Rabbis interpreted the Torah more literally and less metaphorically; had they understood the value and logic of Zadokite and Boethian thinking. Had they just accepted the fact that most often when the prophets spoke of suffering, they were referring to their own lives which had borne and endured the whips and scourges of mankind for attempting to deliver their messages to both rulers and the common people, rather than making unwarranted leaps into the realm of the fantastical of future messiahs with magical powers that would suffer incredible punishments. Then there would have been no precedents upon which alternative religions would have built their houses of unfounded doctrines. But no, these rabbis could not do so. They could not leave the obvious alone and through their naivitee they have brought down upon all of us a lifetime of suffering and persecution. Surely now they would see that as a people we have fulfilled those prophecies that originally were spouted by the prophets of old. No longer an individual's suffering, no longer the prophets themselves, but an entire people, marked and scourged, beaten and executed for no other crime than being unwilling to abandon the words of God.

From their own arguments that I will present subsequently, you will be able to follow the transition from Rabbinical conjecture to Christian reality. Of how men with nothing more to do than discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin caused the fractures within Judaism that led to one religion becoming three. The finger is pointed in their direction for this is their true legacy.

The Rabbis' Folly

Considering that the Talmud is a compilation of not Oral Law as the Rabbis would attempt to make one believe but in reality a compilation of legends, folklore and irrelevant discourses, then it is not surprising that there was an atmosphere in Judea around the time of the Roman occupation that would have supported the advent of a figure like Yeshua. One must remember that the Talmud is based on these legends from that particular time period and that it was the Pharisees that in their defiance and attempts to turn the people from Zadokite or Sadducean teachings who advocated such myths and legends as being actual truths. They taught these fabrications not as the mythical tales they were but as unwritten stories and commandments that were handed down from the time of Moses,despite Moses purposely declaring that all there is was written in the Torah and there was no more.

Such is the case when one examines Sanhedrin 98b in the Babylonian Talmud which states, "What is his name?(the Messiah) The Rabbis said, his name is the Leper Scholar, as it is written, surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted."

Is it any wonder this leper Messiah, who suffered for the griefs and sorrows of his people only to be rejected by them would naturally lead to assumption of Christians that Yeshua suffered for his people only to be scorned and rejected by the very people he had come to save. The Pharisees and Rabbis had already affirmed in their minds that this is exactly the way it was to proceed and in so doing gave Yeshua his legitimized standing. As a leper they were already stating he would be rejected despite his status as the messiah. Furtherthermore, what is most alarming is that their reference to this messiah is in the past tense. He had already come and gone which I find this view of theirs astounding since they have now given even more credence to Yeshua's claim, since I know of no other identity that they could offer up as heir to this title that would have already existed. Unless they're referring to Simon Bar Kochba and that would even be more alarming if that was the case since Bar Kochba did nothing but lead us into another war with Rome which almost resulted in our complete extermination. But then again, he was the Rabbi's choice for a messiah and therefore they ultimately were responsible for the slaughter of Jews in the hundreds of thousands.

Midrash Ruth Rabbah: "Another explanation (of Ruth ii.14): -- He is speaking of king Messiah; `Come hither,' draw near to the throne; `and eat of the bread,' that is, the bread of the kingdom; `and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,' this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities"

Once again the Rabbis refer to the messiah being a person made to suffer for the sins and transgressions of the Jewish people. If one did not know better they would say that it was a Christian minister writing his sermon and declaring from the pulpit that Jesus was the messiah and that he died on behalf of the sins of the Jews. But this isn't some Christian theologian but Rabbis with vivid imaginations creating fantastical tales from what were originally precise statements of legitimate prophets.

Zohar: "`He was wounded for our transgressions,' etc....There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Sons of Sickness; this palace the Messiah then enters and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgression of the law: and this is that which is written, `Surely our sicknesses he hath carried."

Long ago I expressed my opinion of the Zohar. (see http:/hubpages.com/hub/Dont-Mess-With-The-Zohar) It is an abomination of Judaism and those that practice it and worship through it are not glorified but condemned by God. Nothing in the Zohar is to be taken literally nor given credibility. But to the Christian mind reading the above passage, it would certainly seem to justify his faith in Yeshua. After all, it fits very well with their beliefs that Israel transgressed and only someone or something more than a man could bear those sins and carry them away.

Rabbi Moses Alschech (1508-1600) in reference to Isaiah 52:13 and 53 said, "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

In reference to these same chapters Abrabanel (1437-1508) said "This is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their Midrashim."

I can read those same passages and quickly see that the Prophet is referring to Israel as the suffering servant. The entity that has born the abuse of the world for following the path of righteousness and Torah. And even Rashi, a rabbinic sage, knew that Isaiah 53 was referring to Israel and chastised his colleagues for popularizing their wild imaginations of thinking otherwise. But as Abarbanel mentions above, "These rabbis were not prepared to abandon their faulty interpretion of Isaiah 53 as Messianic because they needed desparately to feed their congregations an opiate of faith in order to appease the constant question they faced of why we must suffer constantly. By giving their congregations false hope they could avoid their being dragged into the streets and pummelled by their followers once they realized that the hardships they suffered all occurred because of the rabbis' own distortions and poltical miscalcultations.

Even more dangerous is the allusions made in the Midrash Tanchuma by the Rabbis in which they claim the messiah is as follows: "He was more exalted than Abraham, more extolled than Moses, higher than the archangels" This is further confirmed in Yalkut Schimeon ( ascribed to Rabbi Simeon Kara, 12th Century ) in which he says regarding Zecharih 4:7: "He ( the Messiah ) is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, 'My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly' (Isaiah 52:13)."

Now as I've already expressed, the prophet is merely referring to Israel as His servant and he is only confirming what God has always said that He would favour Israel and raise it above all other nations and it will be glorified upon the lips of all other people. So where in the world these rabbis can make an ascertation that the messiah will be greater than Abraham, or Moses, or any of the other prophets is beyond anything God has said or proscribed. To negate and relegate God's chosen men that he spoke to directly in such a callous manner and minimize them at the same time is intolerable. To place him above angels is practically sacriligious. But what they did do in their moment of sublime stupidity is create the fable of a messiah that must be more than human, imbued with some heavenly powers that Christians immediately seized upon as justification for their beliefs. So in essence, Christianity has not built its foundation of beliefs upon the Torah but upon the words and fabrications of these Jewish Rabbis that had no authority to speak on God's behalf.

Though some say that Maimonides (RAMBAM 1135-12O4) was benevolent to the Karaites, another falsehood which I object to since RAMBAM said that Rabbanite kindness would only be extended to those of us that admitted Karaism was a mistaken belief, this pinnacle of rabbinic wisdom wrote to Rabbi Jacob Alfajumi, "Likewise said Isaiah that He (Messiah) would appear without acknowledging a father or mother: 'He grew up before him as a tender plant and as a root out of a dry ground' etc. (Isa.53:2)."

I don't know whether RAMBAM was taking some of his own medication he prescribed as a doctor or whether he was sharing the hashpipe with Saladdin at the time but whatever drugs he was on, his failure to comprehend this very simple analogy made by the prophet Isaiah had major repercussions against Judaism's rejection of Christianity. Whereas the prophet was simply comparing the rise of Judaism within a hostile environment and how not only did it grow but took root to find nourishment in hostile soil, a very easy metaphor to understand, RAMBAM saw it in the same mythological fallacy of his forefathers, the Pharisim. How one draws a conclusion of divine birth, inhuman progeneration from a green shoot growing in a desert escapes me. But because he was so willing to believe the myth perpetuated by the Pharisees at the time of Roman occupation, he is an example of how these rabbis not only encouraged the belief of Hellenistic (Greek polytheism) divine creation but were responsible for such beliefs taking root amongst the poor and uneducated classes amongst the Jewish populace. In other words, Yeshua didn't create Christianity, the rabbis did. And early Christians were nothing more than rabbinic Jews having this peculiar belief that is an ananthema to the Torah.

Unfortuantely the rabbis couldn't stop themselves. The more they wrote on the topic of the messiah, the more they fed the appetite of Christian clergy to demonstrate that the Jews knew that Yeshua was the messiah and knowingly rejected him. Rabbi Moses, 'The Preacher'(11. Century) wrote in his commentary on Genesis (page 660) as follows, "From the beginning God has made a covenant with the Messiah and told Him,' My righteous Messiah, those who are entrusted to you, their sins will bring you into a heavy yoke'..And He answered, 'I gladly accept all these agonies in order that not one of Israel should be lost.' Immediately, the Messiah accepted all agonies with love, as it is written: 'He was oppressed and he was afflicted."

Once again we have a situation where the rabbis will fabricate stories, legends, or similar and give it divine sanctification. By writing this comment, Rabbi Moses has openly declared that the Messiah existed from the beginning of time. I know of no place in the Book of Genesis where this statement is made. Nor do I have any recollection from Genesis of God engaging in a conversation with the messiah. In fact, I don't know of anywhere in the entire Torah where God engages in such a conversation. And to imply that the Messiah acknowledges that he will take on the sins of Israel as his own, is definitely not what is written in Isaiah 53. In fact it states that God was pleased with afflicting him (52:10) and it was God that caused him grief. The people witnessing this did not realize that it was for their iniquities but instead saw it as punishment from God. But by putting into written script what the Pharisees had declared at the time of Yeshua and what the rabbis still believe, that the messiah is an eternal spirit that existed from the beginning, they gave him God-like qualities, and in so doing, provided the concept of the Trinity which is the mainstay of Christianity. Once again, we have rabbinical fantasies writing the doctrine for this daughter religion of theirs.

Hellenistic Mythology

I find it amusing that the charges against my Boethian and Zadokite ancestors lodged by the Rabbanites is that they were all Hellenizers, willing to placate themselves to their Greek and Roman overlords at the expense of the religion. They further declared that only they were willing to fight for the preservation of Judaism to the point of fanatical zealotism. Yes, they were fanatical, bringing our civilization to the precipice of annihilation over and over again. Something we Boethians and Zadokites worked hard to see would not happen, even if our methods were accused of being patronizing and subservient. But where we drew the line is with the Torah. That remained unalterable and our overlords were content to leave it so as long as they had our sworn obeiance. But as you can read below, these vanguards of religious freedom, these paragons of virtue, these rabbinical defenders of God's words, were more than happy to alter the religion and freely did so at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives they convinced to fight in defence of Judaism. The question I ask is whether the people knew what they were fighting for because from what the rabbis have written it's hard to believe they did.

From the stories of Rabbi Shim'on ben Yohai in the midrash it was written, "And Armilaus will join battle with Messiah, the son of Ephraim, in the East gate . . .; and Messiah, the son of Ephraim, will die there, and Israel will mourn for him. And afterwards the Holy One will reveal to them Messiah, the son of David, whom Israel will desire to stone, saying, Thou speakest falsely; already is the Messiah slain, and there is non other Messiah to stand up (after him): and so they will despise him , as it is written, "Despised and forlorn of men;" but he will turn and hide himself from them, according to the words, "Like one hiding his face from us."

To the Rabbanites this is not a fable but seen on equal standing with the Torah. As discussed in my hub on the Twin Messiahs, the belief that there would be more than one is based on the Torah statement of the rod and sceptre will not fall. Because one of these was priestly, the rabbis could not stomach the thought of a priestly messiah and instead replaced him with a descendant of Joseph. But in their myth creating excercises they've written just as the Greeks did with the mythology entire episodes of events and challenges for their godlings. They even have the messiah of David suffering at their hands because the messiah of Ephraim has died in battle with the demon Armilaus. Already it is taking on Greek mythological status. Was it any wonder that Christians could equate this fable to be the prediction of John the Baptist and Jesus. The ground work had already ben laid by the rabbis.

Even when certain rabbis wished to correct these errors made by their predecessors they found that they could not turn their colleagues from this false mythology. Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman) in the thirteenth century wrote, "The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase "my servant" the whole of Israel is meant. . . .As a different opinion, however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly."

So even Nachmanides is admitting he cannot change the minds of his colleagues as it was too firmly implanted in the Midrash. What a shame that he didn't try harder.

A Karaite View of Isaiah 53

Though I have always interpreted the suffering servant to be a manifestation of Israel itself, and certainly no one can argue that Jews have not suffered for their beliesf over the last 3000 years, it is not to say that mine is the only Karaite interpretation. From the 10th century, Yapheth ben Ali had an interpretation that resembles some of the Rabbanites but with qualifications. He wrote as follows, "As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne: for the prophet begins by speaking of his being seated in a position of great honour, and then goes back to relate all that will happen to him during the captivity. He thus gives us to understand two things: In the first instance, that the Messiah will only reach his highest degree of honour after long and severe trials; and secondly, that these trials will be sent upon him as a kind of sign, so that, if he finds himself under the yoke of misfortunes whilst remaining pure in his actions, he may know that he is the desired one."

Though not particularly my belief, I will not say that Yapheth ben Eli is incorrect. His observations are more solid than those of the Rabbanites and he refers to the Messiah not suffering at the hands of Israel for their sins, but suffering at the hands of the world in which he's exiled. In fact, I do agree with Yapheth that I don't believe the messiah will actually know that he is the messiah until such time that he has gone through a series of trials. It is more a case of greatness thrust upon him than his own personal pursuit of it. It would appear that both of us are in agreement as to the manner in which the ascent of the messiah will occur.

Essentially, the message of this article is that the kernels of belief upon which Christianity were based were all created and acknowledged by Rabbinic Judaism. Therefore it must be questioned as to what their primary reasons were that they took such objection to the offspring of their own vivid imaginations when first faced with the rise of the Nazoreans and Minians. It is remarkable that the rabbis would foster such beliefs steeped in mythology and contrary to the Torah,and when faced by the specter of their fallacies would find it so abhorrent. They have rejected it to the point of practically denying that the Christianity originally practiced was in abidement with their own practices and that must make even this Karaite wonder what was their motivation in the first place? Was it perhaps just to be contrary to us Zadokites and Boethians in order to have a point of differentiation in which to begin a struggle for power? Only they can say but after two thousand years I doubt they'll start to admit to their sins now.

There were many stories circulating within the family concerning the events surrounding Yeshua. As I compiled these into the novel 'The Caiaphas Letters' I realized that the circumstances, intrigues and intentions of various individuals went far beyond our own levels of understanding and certainly that of the Pharisees of the time. See http://legendsofthekahana.webs.com/3onthecharts.htm for further details.

First Karaite Letter to my Christian Brethren

As mentioned in a previous article of mine, the presenter at the AJS conference took exception to Yaphet ben Eli's condemnation of Rabbanites while not venting any of his disdain upon either Islam or Christianity. She felt that this was grossly unfair and in some way alluded to an anti-Jewish agenda by Karaite Jews. Besides being pathetically amusing as I don't think you could find any community any more pro-Jewish than Karaites (since we consider ourselves to be the genuine article), it is so shockingly inaccurate that I am amazed that the presenter would actually be considered a qualified expert on the topic to be invited to speak at a conference with a worldwide audience. To imply that the discourses of Yaphet ben Eli were the entire summation of Karaite polemics would be like suggesting that Moses standing on Mount Sinai is the entire extent of Jewish history with nothing preceding nor following. She deliberately chose to overlook the extent of Karaite polemics which were very convincing in their debating the inaccuracies and fallacies of other religions, so much so that no Rabbanite documents could match them for their extent of research and level of defence. In many cases Rabbanite Jews claimed the Karaite writings for their own, adding passages and paragraphs in order to introduce an element of Talmud but in so doing, weakening the argument and thereby reducing the impact these Karaite documents would have had if left alone. In that regard, I am more fortunate than most, having been handed down an original copy of Hazok Amonah published at the end of the !7th century. When it was handed to me, I was told two things: one, to never let the book leave the possession of the family and secondly, to know when the time was right to wield it like a sword. At the same time I was told the title should be translated as 'A Testimony of Strength', indicating that knowldedge of the book would imbue the reader with the strength to refute any argument trying to justify the sanctity of Christian doctrine. In effect, this little book (it fits into the palm of my hand) written by Isaac ben Abraham Troki was the ultimate polemic against Christian teachings. In its time, so devastating was the arguments made by Troki that the Church ordered that all copies of the book be confiscated and burned. But like so many things the Church wished to eliminate completely, Judaism in particular, they failed to do so and copies survived, Not many, but the one in my possession is proof that you can never completely destroy an idea through force. What can destroy it is ignorance and adulteration, and like so many other great Karaite works, the Rabbis did manage to publish copies of this particular book but with their additions. These additions were obtained from their writings regarding Christianity in the Talmud and like so much of the Talmud, not only were their arguments without any quantifiable research, they bordered on the absurd and ridiculous. Suddenly a book which in its original form shook the very foundations of Christianity became a poor parody of limited amusing value. Even the translation of the title was altered to reflect the Rabbanites desire that the book serve to reinforce their own faith and counteract the growing tide of assimilation and conversion amongst their congregations. 'Faith Strengthened' became the books new title translation, as they hoped it would stop the exodus from Rabbinical Judaism by ridiculing the Christianity to which the converts were turning. Hardly the agent of strengthening values, their version of Troki's book only served to confuse people more that were already confused as to which religion represented God's true teachings.

What most historians fail to acknowledge is that without the development of Rabbinical Judaism there would have been no birth of Christianity. The origin had less to do with Yeshua (Jesus) and more to do with the distorted teachings of the Pharisees and their progeny called Rabbanites post destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This is not conjecture, this is fact derived from their own Talmud. It is the reason that I have tolerance and patience for the Messianic Jews of today. When some of my colleagues question as to why I have Messianics on my blogs and contact pages, I have a simple answer, "Because they are merely victims of the confusion woven by the Rabbanites." How can I condemn them for what they do not understand. If the source of that confusion is the Talmud then it is the Talmud that I should not tolerate not those that are its victims. Therefore to me, they are no different than the lost children of Rabbinic Judasim. Once shown the truth and the correct path, they will return; of that I am certain.

In my latest discourses to follow I will present a series of articles on this topic and particluarly the Hazok Amonah. I will let Isaac ben Abraham Troki speak on his own behalf for the most part. There is little I can add to his arguments but where I do, I hope that had he been alive today he would forgive me for my liberties and approve of any additions I make. The first of the articles will examine the creation of Christianity and how it was a Pharasaic or Rabbanite development. A progression of their own thoughts and writings and ultimately their own undoing. Because they dared to challenge the scriptures and alter the words of God, they unleashed the embodiment of their esoteric fantasies and for that we have borne the punishment. Recognizing the 'Golem' they had created, a manifestation that turned against it's own masters that created it, they countered with such writings as the Toldoth Jeshua (http://hubpages.com/hub/Toldoth-Jeshua-The-Trial-of-Jesus) but it was too late. They could not put the proverbial genie back into the bottle. All their attempts of ridicule and sarcasm that they incorporated into their Talmud only served to increase the animosity harboured by this new religion called Christianity against its birth parent. As Karaites we saw that the Rabbanites had become entrapped by their own distortions and fabrications. In order to deny Christianity it necessitated that they also admit that many of their interpretations of the afterlife and messianic aspirations also had to be denied. Since much of this was derived from what they referred to as the Oral Laws, then it also meant they'd have to declare the Talmud a false document created by men and lacking Divine origins. They could not bring themselves to do so and the rest as we say, 'is history.'