Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 48

John 8:40, "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God." If he had been identical with God, he would not have told the Jews that he had received his revelation from God. The truth proceeds from his own mouth, that he was not a Deity incarnate. What the opinion of his disciples was regarding this Divinity subsequently attributed to him, is sufficiently manifest, in spite of the many obscure expressions that occur in the New Testament; for instance, Paul says plainly, in his epistle to the Romans, chapter 5:15, "The gift of grace which is by One Man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." In every part of the New Testament where Jesus speaks of himself, he represents himself as the Son of Man, and not as God.

Again, Troki betrays his ignorance of how the Greek Bible uses the terms of Lord and God. The Septuagint, which was written around 250 B.C.E. had translations for the terms which were borrowed by the New Testament writers.

A refresher:

(LORD or Lord or Yahweh = κυριος = יהוה)
(God = ο θεος = אלהים)

This can be seen in the translations of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4)
שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה אֶחָֽד

ἄκουε Ισραηλ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν

Hear, Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh one.

When reading the English, or even the Greek New Testament, one might think that the term "God" was the more exalted term while the term "Lord" was one of less exaltation. Once we realize how the Septuagint translators selected from the Greek language, the picture changes. The term "God" is equivalent to the term "Elohim" which can mean God, gods, spirits, or even mighty human judges. The term Lord, on the other hand, is equivalent to the four-letter name of God, and is used only of the Creator of the Universe.

Of course the New Testament authors never denied that Jesus was man as well as God, or that Jesus was distinct from the Father.

For further reading:
Jesus as God: Clearing the Ground
Jesus as God: A Biblical Case

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 47

John 8:3-5, 7, "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they said unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what sayest thou? And he said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." And he said to the woman (verse 11), "Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more." The laxity of this sentence is not only opposed to the Mosaic injunction, (Deut 22:22) "Thou shalt remove the evil from the midst of thee": but it is also practically disavowed by the Christian legislation, according to which, the adulteress is subjected to the severest rigour of the law, on account of the injury it would necessarily occasion to the happiness of society. 

In this section, Troki is quoting a part of the Bible that does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. The event may be historical and added in as a marginal note. Troki's argument in this section is that Jesus made a lax legal decision and one that opposes Jewish law.

The problem with Troki's argument is that it assumes Jesus was in fact making a legal decision, and it does not seem obvious that he was. In several cases, the opponents of Jesus wanted to trap him in a double bind. Consider when they asked him whether or not it was legal to pay taxes to Caesar. If he said that it was, then he is a traitor to the Jewish people, who did not believe in having an image on their money. If he said that it was not, then he could be labeled a traitor to the Roman Empire.

According to the Talmud, the Jewish authorities lost the right to capital punishment around the year 30. According to Josephus in book 20 of his Antiquities, the Roman procurator was needed to conduct capital punishment, meaning that the right of the Jewish courts to execute people was severely curbed around the year 6, when Judea became a Roman province.

It would have been very dangerous for any Jewish court to execute someone. If the Romans found out and took offense, they could retaliate. This passage is another example of a situation where the Jewish law and Roman law came into conflict, and someone who made a definite decision was in a double bind. As usual, Jesus noticed that this was not a legal accusation, since under Jewish law, one needs two witnesses who are interrogated separately. Jesus, being as clever as he was, found a way to escape the situation.