The Lubavitcher Rebbe Was Called God

As I mentioned in my Introduction to Jewish Apologetics video, the Lubavitcher Rebbe was called Lord and God by his most devout followers.

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/02/the_lubavitcher.html
http://www.haaretz.com/news/the-lubavitcher-rebbe-as-a-god-1.212516

Rabbi Ariel Sokolovsky is a Moldova-born Chabad rabbi in Portland, Oregon, and a more amiable soul would be hard to find.

Yet Sokolovsky maintains a blog he entitled "Rebbegod" and refers to Schneerson as "Rebbe-Almighty" among other adulatory sobriquets.

Drawing on rabbinical sources, he attempts to show that this is not as revolutionary as it sounds. He concedes that there are few people like him who will openly call the Rebbe God. He claims, however, that many people believe it, but do not say so openly for fear of scaring people away from Chabad altogether.

Not only do the most devout followers of Chabad call the Rebbe "God," but the practice is more mainstream than most Chabadniks like to admit. The Rebbe himself encouraged this, saying that it is ok to pray to him since the Rebbe is the essence of God enclothed in a body (Likudei Slichos, Volume 2).

The voice of moderates who believe the Rebbe is in fact dead (though most of this group still adhere to his belief of his ultimate resurrection and coronation as messiah) is increasingly cowed, with violent brawls breaking out and spilling on the streets on a regular basis leading to scores of hospitalizations and arrests.

Even the installment of a memorial plaque can cause a riot; as one rioter told the press: "He's alive - they are writing that the Rebbe is dead!"

Even the moderates believe that the Rebbe will be resurrected and crowned as Messiah. Maimonides said that if someone dies, it disqualifies him as Messiah. Chabad shows that Maimonides is not the be all and end all of Judaism. Chabad believes that Maimonides is dead wrong in this area, and is still considered normative Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism.

Members of the congregation were happy to explain:

What do the pins signify?
"It symbolizes our dedication to the Rebbe above all else."

Above all else? Above God?
"As far as we are concerned, we can pray to the Rebbe and he can deal with God for us."

Is that not turning the Rebbe into a god himself, an idol of your own creation?
"The Rebbe was not created; the Rebbe has always been around and always will be."

If one believes in God but leaves the Rebbe aside, is one still Jewish? 

"When the messiah reveals himself, those who didn't see him won't be saved, so you should work on..." He is interrupted. "Look, what you need to do is start with God and work your way up to the Rebbe."

While it may seem bizarre to describe electrician-cum-rabbi M. M. Schneerson in this way, many of the people seen as messianist view Schneerson as a demigod. They are loathe to state this explicitly, but they will assign him characteristics of God, pray to him and, when pressed, suggest that there is really no difference between him and God. Since the Rebbe was perfection personified, he is greater than any man that ever lived; ergo he is godly - omnipotent, omniscient and unlimited.

Virtually no one within the movement today is willing to deny that Schneerson was the greatest man that ever lived nor that he was perfect.

None have a problem with praying to Schneerson, using his books for divination in place of the Bible. Even amongst those viewed as moderates, "the Rebbe" is often substituted for God in normal conversation, sprinkling their remarks with comments such as "may the Rebbe help you" or "the Rebbe is watching over us."

Even among the moderate minority, the distinction between Schneerson and God is decidedly blurred. Asking adherents whether Schneerson will return as the Messiah is unlikely to yield a directly negative response.

Demigod? The claim that the Rebbe was not created is not a description of a demigod, but of the Rebbe as God, both representationally and ontologically. None have a problem praying to the Rebbe. Again, Chabad disproves the notion that Judaism has no concept of Messiah as God. For the Lubavitchers, Schneersohn is both Messiah and God.

Schneerson wrote of his father-in-law as the messiah, though the previous rebbe had recently died. Adherents believe that when the Rebbe referred to his father-in-law, this was code for the Rebbe himself.

Why do they think that Schneerson is alive?
"The Rebbe was no normal human being," is the response. He was a polymath who "studied under Einstein in Berlin" before "inventing the atom bomb."

How do they view the connection between Schneerson and God?
"The Rebbe is not something different from God - the Rebbe is a part of God," says a British teenaged student.

Does this not 'idolize' Schneerson, in the literal sense? 
 "We cannot connect to God directly - we need the Rebbe to take our prayers from here to there and to help us in this world. We are told by our rabbis that a great man is like God and the Rebbe was the greatest man ever. That is how we know he is the messiah, because how could life continue without him? No existence is possible without the Rebbe."

Would they go so far as to describe the Rebbe and God as one and the same, as some extreme Messianists have done?
"No, some people have gone too far and described the Rebbe as the creator.

"They say that God was born in 1902 and is now 105 years old. You can pray to the Rebbe and he will answer, and he was around since the beginning of time. But you must be careful to pray only to the Rebbe as a spiritual entity and not the body that was born in 1902."

Does the Rebbe have a will of his own? What if the Rebbe and God disagree?
"That is a ridiculous question! They are not separate in any way."

So the Rebbe is a part of God. 
"Yes, but it is more complex than that. There is no clear place where the Rebbe ends and God begins."

Does that mean the Rebbe is infinite omnipotent and omniscient? 
"Yes of course," an Argentine student says in Hebrew. "God chose to imbue this world with life through a body. So that's how we know the Rebbe can't have died, and that his actual physical body must be alive. The Rebbe is the conjunction of God and human. The Rebbe is God, but he is also physical."

"Some people have gone too far and described the Rebbe as creator." In other words, there are members of the Chabad organization who see the Rebbe as God in exactly the same sense as the Christian church has seen Jesus as God.

Don't ever let any rabbi or anti-missionary tell you that Judaism is incompatible with the idea that anyone who dies before the prophecies are fulfilled cannot be Messiah, or that Messiah cannot be God, or that God cannot become incarnate. These are lies and propaganda against belief in Jesus, and the situation with the Rebbe proves it.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 86

1 Corinthians 10:8, "Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand."

In this brief passage there is an error, which in every other work might pass unnoticed. A book, which assumes to be dictated by inspiration, ought to be accurate in every particular. In Numbers 25, we read that four and twenty thousand, and not three and twenty thousand, fell by the visitation of pestilence.

One might think that this is another difference between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, but in this case, both say Twenty four thousand were killed. Paul says twenty-three thousand were killed, and this issue is known in Biblical Studies circles as the case of the missing thousand.

A simple explanation is that if twenty four thousand were killed, then twenty three thousand were also killed, so this is not really an error. The question still remains: why didn't Paul just say twenty four thousand?

One might propose a solution that Paul uses the number of Levites in the census of Numbers 26, but that seems unlikely that Paul would do that without further explanation.

Philo, Josephus, the Targums, and the Talmud all draw a distinction between those killed by human hands due to the Baal Peor incident, and those killed by the plague. For example, Josephus seems to think that 10,000 were killed and 14,000 died of the plague. The Talmud puts the figure of those executed by human hands to be 157,200.

Likely, Paul was drawing a similar distinction between those killed by the plague and those killed by human hands. The passage itself lends credence to this distinction.

While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people and hang them in the sun before the LORD, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.” And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you kill those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.” (Numbers 25:1-5)

 A. Lukyn Williams has a different take:

The discrepancy is plain; the Pentateuch says twenty-four, St. Paul twenty-three. Of course explanations have been given. One is that only twenty-three thousand died of the plague, and the rest were slain judicially by Moses (see Num 25:4). But we are expressly told in verse 9 that twenty-four thousand "died by the plague." Another way of getting out of the difficulty is to lay stress on the phrase, "in one day," and thus to suggest that although twenty-three thousand died on one day, the rest died on the preceding or following days. But it is useless to deceive ourselves with quibbles such as these. The number as it stands is an error, and we possess no means of explaining it. Yet suppose St. Paul did make a mistake in a number, of what possible importance is it? No one to-day imagines that any single writer of either the Old or the New Testament was necessarily preserved from mistakes in trivial matters. We Christians, at any rate, are quite willing to grant that the Apostle may have made an error. Yet, after conceding this, we may not forget another possibility. For knowing what we do know of the Apostle's methods in referring to Scripture we may reasonably suspect that there was a Jewish tradition bearing on the point, and existing in his time, which has not come down to us. On the whole this is the most probable solution of the difficulty, but the whole question is of infinitesimal importance. 

 For those who like academic publications, here is a novel solution to the missing thousand problem.

The Myth of National Revelation

Introduction
I can't believe that I never picked up on this before.

None of the first four books of the Pentateuch give us any indication that the whole nation of Israel received direct revelation from God. Indeed, the story in Exodus indicates that Moses went up the mountain and received his direct revelation alone.

And the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever.” When Moses told the words of the people to the LORD, the LORD said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments and be ready for the third day. For on the third day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. And you shall set limits for the people all around, saying, ‘Take care not to go up into the mountain or touch the edge of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death. No hand shall touch him, but he shall be stoned or shot; whether beast or man, he shall not live.’ When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain.” So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people; and they washed their garments. And he said to the people, “Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman.” (Exodus 19:9-15)

Others do go up the mountain, but do not receive revelation.

Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank. (Exodus 24:9-11)

Read the first four books of the Pentateuch, and you will realize that there is no indication of any sort of national revelation. God revealed the Torah to Moses in private, and spoke to Moses and to small groups. Moses then relays the information to the people of Israel.

In the Wilderness
The book of Numbers has two different events where Moses takes a census of the people of Israel.

The LORD spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying, “Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, by clans, by fathers' houses, according to the number of names, every male, head by head. From twenty years old and upward, all in Israel who are able to go to war, you and Aaron shall list them, company by company. (Numbers 1:1-3)

This is the census taken at Sinai. In it, there is an important passage.

These are the people of Israel as listed by their fathers' houses. All those listed in the camps by their companies were 603,550. But the Levites were not listed among the people of Israel, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 2:32-33)

The Levites are exempted from this census. However, it does not mean that Moses failed to take their numbers into account.

 

And the LORD spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying, “List the sons of Levi, by fathers' houses and by clans; every male from a month old and upward you shall list.” So Moses listed them according to the word of the LORD, as he was commanded. (Numbers 3:14-16)

All those listed among the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron listed at the commandment of the LORD, by clans, all the males from a month old and upward, were 22,000. (Numbers 3:39)

They were not counted, but they were listed.

Rebellion of the Spies
Moses sent spies out to check out the Promised Land. Only Caleb and Joshua gave a positive report. The other spies said that the land could not be taken, and the people agreed.

Then all the congregation raised a loud cry, and the people wept that night. And all the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The whole congregation said to them, “Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! Or would that we had died in this wilderness! Why is the LORD bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become a prey. Would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?” And they said to one another, “Let us choose a leader and go back to Egypt.” (Numbers 14:1-4)

Not just the Levites but the whole congregation of Israel rebelled against God. One might think that the Levites were exempt, but it was common in those days to kill off the men by the sword and to take the women and children as booty.

God initially threatened to punish the whole of Israel by killing them.

And the LORD said to Moses, “How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.” (Numbers 14:11-12)

Notice that God held everyone responsible, not just the men of military age. God threatened to wipe out everyone, not just the men. Moses interceded, and God changed the punishment.

But truly, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD, none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the test these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, shall see the land that I swore to give to their fathers. And none of those who despised me shall see it. But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it. (Numbers 14:21-24)

No distinction is made between the Levites and the rest of Israel. With two exceptions, nobody who saw the signs that God did in the wilderness would see the Promised Land.

Dovid Gottlieb has replied that the people under 20, the Levites, and the women did not die. There is nothing in the text to say that the Levites did not die. In fact, the entire congregation of Israel complained against Moses and Aaron (Numbers 14:1-2). Gottlieb's conclusion that a considerable majority of the people who left Egypt were still alive is implausible given the life expectancy at that time. The average lifespan for Ancient Egyptians was 20-30, and the average lifespan for someone who made it to adulthood was 30-40. Even if the women were spared the curse, and everyone under 20 was spared the curse, it follows that everyone from that generation would have been over 40. Since children under 5 would not have possessed reliable memories of the event, this means everyone in that group would have been in the over 45 category and female.

This is less than 5% of the population, and that assumes that there were no major wars, famines, or plagues, which there were. Even if the Levites were exempt, they were a small tribe of only 23,000. If we include them, then the number jumps to 8% of the population. Hardly a majority of the people.

But that's not all. Remember that women and children at this time in history were not considered valid witnesses. Even in Second Temple Judaism, the testimony of a woman was considered so worthless as to be inadmissible in court. It follows that even if we grant that women and children were not part of that curse, it still follows that none of the people who were considered valid witnesses were around for the speeches in Deuteronomy. The people of Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. Moses then took another census.

After the plague, the LORD said to Moses and to Eleazar the son of Aaron, the priest, “Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, from twenty years old and upward, by their fathers' houses, all in Israel who are able to go to war.” And Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying, “Take a census of the people, from twenty years old and upward,” as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 26:1-4) 

 These were those listed by Moses and Eleazar the priest, who listed the people of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho. But among these there was not one of those listed by Moses and Aaron the priest, who had listed the people of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai. For the LORD had said of them, “They shall die in the wilderness.” Not one of them was left, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. (Numbers 26:63-65)

And all the witnesses who were alive at the time of the Sinai revelation (except Joshua, Caleb, and Moses) were now dead. Only when Moses is about to die does he give his final word to the people of Israel. In this address, we see the passages that kiruv rabbis use in order to sell the idea of national revelation.

And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to possess. (Deuteronomy 4:11-14)

The LORD Alone Is God “For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and ask from one end of heaven to the other, whether such a great thing as this has ever happened or was ever heard of. Did any people ever hear the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and still live? Or has any god ever attempted to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, by wonders, and by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by great deeds of terror, all of which the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him. Out of heaven he let you hear his voice, that he might discipline you. And on earth he let you see his great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire. (Deuteronomy 4:32-36)

The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire, while I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD. For you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain. He said: (Deuteronomy 5:2-5)

“These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me. And as soon as you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes, and your elders. And you said, ‘Behold, the LORD our God has shown us his glory and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire. This day we have seen God speak with man, and man still live. Now therefore why should we die? For this great fire will consume us. If we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, we shall die. For who is there of all flesh, that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of fire as we have, and has still lived? Go near and hear all that the LORD our God will say, and speak to us all that the LORD our God will speak to you, and we will hear and do it.’ (Deuteronomy 5:22-27)
 

Conclusion
It's hard to see what Moses means by saying that the people of Israel had heard a voice speaking out of the fire. All who would have been considered valid witnesses to that event were now dead. One rabbinic interpretation that I heard was that all Jewish souls were present at Sinai, so even though nobody remembered hearing the voice of God, their souls did.

This is a fine explanation, but it shows that the national revelation is indeed unverifiable, killing the main thrust of the Kuzari Principle argument.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 85

1 Corinthians 7:18-20, "Is any man called being circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." In the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 5:3, he also says, "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law." These words ought to be kept in constant remembrance by those Christians who urge us to abandon our holy faith and adopt their religious observances. 

 Galatians was a letter written by Paul to the people of Galatia, which is in modern Turkey. These were non-Jews who were battling a party who said that these Gentiles must follow the observances of the Mosaic Law in order to be true Christians. They demanded circumcision of non-Jews in order that one might have salvation. As Luke states in Acts 15:

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1)

Paul's response to this is decisive. Anyone who holds to a theology of "faith plus something else equals salvation" does not have faith at all, and therefore does not have salvation at all. This applies not only to the Mosaic Law but to all other observances as well. Anyone who thinks that one has to undergo baptism in order to go to heaven, will himself not go to heaven.

This is why Paul argues in Galatians that one needs faith, rather than stating that the Circumcision Party demands the wrong set of observances. Asher Meza himself argues that Rabbinic Tradition is not concerned with going to heaven after you die.

Even according to the rabbis, a Jew does not have to be circumcised to go to heaven, because the Mosaic Law has nothing to do with whether someone goes to heaven!

A. Lukyn Williams writes "Gentile believers had already found full liberty in Christ, and to yield to these persuasions would involve much more than the bare act of circumcision, even bondage under the whole Law of Moses. For a believer in Christ to be circumcised would imply that he had made up his mind to be saved by the works of the Law, instead of by Christ, that he had in fact fallen away from Christ altogether."

Paul was by his own writings a very strictly observant Jew.

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. (Philippians 3:3-6)

These are not things one can be honestly mistaken about. If Paul was not a Pharisee and not a persecutor of the church, then he was a flat out liar. Paul had nothing to gain by lying about any of this (even Shabir Ally admits this), and underwent great loss and persecution for his beliefs. He could have recanted and ended the persecution, but he was to committed to what he believed was the truth.


Williams concludes:

We believe in religious liberty, more sincerely perhaps than do Jews. For indeed we fear, that in places where they have much power, as in Palestine, New York, and even in the East of London, they employ no little pressure and unfair compulsion to prevent members of their race from listening to the words of the Gospel. We Christians acknowledge with shame that Jews have suffered much from persecution in the past. But we cannot help seeing signs that they themselves are beginning to persecute Christians (only Jewish Christians, so far) in the present. We sometimes wonder whether Jews, notwithstanding the terrible lessons they have received, have even yet learned the elements of toleration in the modern and Christian sense. It is easy for the few and the down-trodden to be tolerant; the test comes when they are many and strong. Then is seen the presence, or the absence, of humble and sincere faith in the God of righteousness and love.

 I can attest to this. Orthodox Jews exercise great control over their members in ways that Fundamentalist Christians do not. Chosen People Ministries has apartments set aside for Jews who get kicked out and lose their livelihoods for their belief in Jesus. The reverse is not true. Christians who become Orthodox Jews are generally accepted by their families and friends. They are not kicked out, and are still accepted and have connections to their livelihoods.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 84

1 Corinthians 6:3, Paul says, "Know ye that we shall judge angels?" Great must have been the Apostle's presumption if he believed that corporeal man should be the judge of incorporeal beings! The greatest prophets of Israel admitted that the angels were beyond the comprehension of our finite sense. How could the invisible be summoned before the tribunal of the visible?

What presumption the apostle must have to think that in the days of resurrection, that we will be great enough to judge angels! It's true that the greatest of prophets thought that angels were beyond us, but none of these prophets has experienced the glory of resurrection.

In the Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 93a, Rav Jonathan states "The righteous are greater than the ministering angels, for it is said, He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the son of God"

So even Rabbinic tradition agrees with Paul's statement that there are people who will judge angels, because they rank above them.

Introduction to Jewish Apologetics

For those getting started in Jewish apologetics, this 70 minute video covers the basic topics.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 83

1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul reproaches his followers that "there be fornication among them, and that one of them had committed incest by marrying his father's wife."

If Paul, as all his writings indicate, considered the Christians dispensed from observing the Mosaic Law, where was their boundary of religious duties or transgressions, seeing that Jesus had not promulgated a new code of laws? Surely, no permission had been granted by the founder of Christianity, so that his followers should observe part of the Mosaic laws, and reject the remainder. 

Troki can be forgiven of contradicting rabbinic tradition, since he is a Karaite. In Rabbinic Judaism, Maimonides himself made the distinction between the Mosaic Law and the moral law. There are certain temptations, such as the temptation to eat pork, which a Jew is allowed to entertain, stating that he would love to eat that pork, but his creator forbids him from doing so. A Jew is not allowed to entertain temptations to violate the moral law. He cannot say that he would love to have an affair with a woman, but his creator forbids him from doing so. This shows that Maimonides believed in such a distinction.

Paul did as well. He writes in Romans:

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
(Romans 2:12-16)

Gentiles, who are not bound by the Mosaic Law, are still bound by a moral law, which is written on the hearts of everyone. Not only does Paul not oppose the moral law, he supports it. Paul repeatedly warns his readers about avoiding sin and encourages them to seek holiness. This would be puzzling if Paul believed that the moral law had been abrogated.

Another take is from the rabbis, who said that non-Jews are to follow the Seven Laws of Noah. The fourth law says not to engage in sexual sins. Even if the Mosaic Law were totally abolished, this moral law remains, since it precedes the Mosaic Law.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 82

Romans 16:20, "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly," etc. In 1 Thessalonians 2:18, Paul says, "We would have come unto you again, even I, Paul, but Satan hindered us."

The Christians, in consequence of the above quotations, maintain the belief that the power of Satan was broken by the death of Jesus, who "bruised the head of the serpent." If so, how then did it happen that Satan, after the death of Jesus, had such sway as to obstruct the very apostles of Jesus in the pursuit of their ministrations? 

Let me first answer this challenge with a cheap shot. In Romans, Paul said that God would soon bruise Satan under the feet of the Roman Christians, meaning that he had not done so yet. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul said that he was hindered by Satan. Troki's entire case hinges upon the assumption that Romans was written before 1 Thessalonians. Was it? Let's take a look at a chart based on very liberal scholarship:

So no, 1 Thessalonians was written a good 7 years before Romans. Troki's argument merely reflects his ignorance of New Testament scholarship, which can be forgiven considering how long ago he wrote his work. Recently, I have been watching lectures by Jews for Judaism rabbis on New Testament subjects, and their ignorance of this topic is obvious. For Example, Michael Skobac dates Acts in the 90-120 A.D. range, even though no contemporary scholar dates Acts later than 95 due to Domitian's persecution of the church in that era. Atheist scholars like James Crossley date Acts around 75, and conservative scholars such as D.A. Carson and Doug Moo date Acts in the late 50s-early 60s.

The challenge regarding Satan would be better answered by a preacher than a biblical scholar. It is a misinterpretation to say that Jesus crushing the head of Satan means that Satan is immediately annihilated and has no power to do anything. The cross and the resurrection has mortally wounded the enemy, and now he is trying to do as much damage as possible before his final defeat.

Again, the rabbis keep making this assumption that upon the arrival of Messiah, all prophecies will be completely fulfilled within one lifetime. There is no reason to expect this, and the story of the mustard seed tells us that we should expect a slow and gradual fulfillment of prophecy over a very long period of time until all is complete. We need to be patient and think in terms of long-term strategies instead of thinking that Jesus will return in our lifetimes..

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 81

Romans 11:26, "And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob."

The true words of the prophet (Isaiah 59:20), do not indicate that the Messiah will turn away ungodliness from Jacob, but that "a redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who return from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord." 

ἥξει ἕνεκεν Σιων ὁ ῥυόμενος καὶ ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ιακωβ  (Isaiah 59:20)

Ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος καὶ ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ (Romans 11:26)

Again, Paul simply quotes the Septuagint almost verbatim. The word at the beginning, whether it be
ἐκ (from) or ἕνεκεν (for the sake of) is immaterial to addressing Troki's argument. The Septuagint does say that Messiah will turn ungodliness away from Jacob. I have already written extensively on the reliability of the Septuagint, as well as the fact that it long predates the church.

In fact, Emanuel Tov has argued in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible that most of the Tanakh was translated into Greek before the era of the Maccabees.

Furthermore, the Targum agrees with the Septuagint's reading, which states that the redeemer will "bring back the rebelliousnesses of the House of Jacob to the Law."

Jewish Christians and Messianic Jews are Still Jews

Who is a Jew?
Ask any Orthodox Rabbi as to whether Jews who believe in Jesus are still halachically Jewish, and they will tell you that such people are Jews. In fact, it is impossible for a Jew to become a non-Jew. In fact, they warn potential converts of this fact. Once you get in this family, there is no way to get out.

Question: My sister was baptized and has since married and had a child. My mother claims the child is Jewish, but how could that be? If Judaism is a religion, if someone leaves it, she’s no longer Jewish, right? 

Response: Logically, I would have to agree with you. If Judaism is a religion, then someone who doesn’t believe in the religion should be no longer Jewish. The reality, however, is that it doesn’t work that way . . .

. . . Based on the above statement of the Talmud, the Jewish Code of Law rules that a marriage between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman who “convert out” is completely valid. Therefore, their children are considered Jewish and could also marry other Jews. 

Which brings us to your case, where a Jewish woman has joined another religion and married a non-Jew. In this instance, as well, since Jewishness is matrilineal, her children are considered Jewish. Apparently, Jewishness is about neither religion nor race. 

Unlike a race, you can get in, but unlike religion, once you’re in you can’t get out. As with Achan, once you are a part of this people, you are the entire people. As Israel is eternal, so your bond with them is irreversible, unbreakable and eternal.

This is the right answer according to Jewish law. The exception is that someone who is converted as a child can renounce his or her conversion upon bar or bat mitzvah age. If they don't, it's impossible for them to stop being Jews.

Again, according to Daat Emet: The Secular Jew's Place in Halacha:
Thus wrote Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in his responsa, Igrot Moshe, Orach Chayim 4, paragraph 83: "...There is no way that a Jew can, according to Halacha, become a gentile; for there is a novelty in the concept that a gentile can become a Jew through conversion, which [could not be acceptable unless] the Torah taught about [it], but there is nothing in either the Written or the Oral Law which says that a Jew can become a gentile. He will always remain a Jew and holy as a Jew in his obligation to fulfill the commandments, marriage, and the pedigree of his children. Children of a mumar remain complete Jews."  

A Personal Story
This has practical implications. I once knew a director of an Orthodox Jewish day camp which had both Jews and gentiles as members of the staff. Jewish members of the staff were not allowed to work between Friday evening and Saturday evening, since that would be a violation of the Sabbath.

The director found out something about one of the members of his gentile staff: while she was a Christian who did not identify as a Jew, she had a Jewish mother. Immediately after finding this out, the director confronted her and told her that she was not allowed to work on the Sabbath because she was a Jew.

The worker responded that she does not consider herself Jewish. The director says that it does not matter. She is a Jew, even if she is also a Christian.

Begging to Differ
One Conservative Rabbi begs to differ. While the Orthodox are convinced that Jews cannot become Gentiles, the Conservative congregations generally do believe that converts to Conservative Judaism can go apostate and become non-Jews. This rabbi uses U.S. Citizenship as an illustration, asking us to imagine three U.S. citizens who leave the United States, integrate into foreign culture, and plan seditious acts against their home country.

The ONLY time that Andy, Bert, or Charlie would ever lose their U.S. citizenship is if and when they accept the citizenship of another country, an act that usually voids their U.S. citizenship. Of course, both the U.S. and the State of Israel recognize dual citizenship in some instances with certain countries, but Judaism and the Jewish 'nation' do not recognize dual citizenship (dual religious loyalties) at all.

This is doubly false. First, the U.S. Bureau of Citizen Affiars clearly states that U.S. citizens can lose their citizenship without becoming citizens of another country.

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship: appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer, in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and. sign an oath of renunciation.

Second, and more importantly, Judaism does recognize dual citizenship. Maimonides himself was a Muslim for a period in his life. He was the personal physician for Saladin, which probably explains a large part of his favoritism of Islam over Christianity. There are also many Jews who become Buddhists, Hare Krishnas (a form of Hinduism), or members of other tribal faiths. There are Jewiccans, who practice Wicca. There are Humanistic Jewish congregations, who practice the religion (and they do consider it a religion) of Secular Humanism. All of them are considered Jews.

Biblical Prooftexts
For biblical prooftexts, he cites Elijah:

And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word. (1 Kings 18:21) 

I don't see how this is any evidence that a Jew can become a non-Jew. One only needs to read further:

Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:18) 

 Most of the people had gone apostate, and had become citizens of Baal worship. Yet they were still part of Israel. During most of the Tanakh history, the nation of Israel had been heavily involved in apostasy and idol worship. The crimes were so bad that the nation was sent into exile. Yet, the people were seen as sinning Jews, not as ex-Jews.

Rabbinic Prooftexts
From rabbinic tradition, he brings multiple prooftexts. We should keep two questions in mind when evaluating them:

1. Do they prove enough?
Do they say enough to make an adequate case that Jews who believe in Jewish are now Gentiles.

2. Do they prove too much?
Maimonides did consider belief in Jesus to be idolatry. The question is: did he consider this belief to make a Jew a non-Jew in a way that worship of nature (e.g. Wicca) does not?

Again, the Daat Emet article indicates that rabbinic tradition as as hostile to secular Judaism as it is to Jewish believers in Jesus.

Halacha's view of secular Jews is as criminals who must be excommunicated and thrown out of the Jewish community, and whose rights to participate in the community's ceremonies or pray to G-d must be revoked! This is exactly what Rabbi Abraham the son of Mordechai HaLevi (Egypt, 1650-1712) wrote (Responsa Ginat Veradim part one, rule two, paragraph 31): 

 "And to the evildoer G-d said, 'Who are you to recite My laws and mouth the terms of My covenant?' (Psalms 50:16). Since he followed his heart and the fear of G-d is not before him, what gains he from fulfilling the commandments and learning Torah? The apostates and heretics who fulfill commandments and learn Torah not only get no reward, they add insult to injury. About them the Scriptures say 'See, they reject the word of the Lord so their wisdom amounts to nothing' (Jeremiah 8:9). This is as one who dresses in kingly clothing to show the world that he is one of the king's men who follow his word and do his work, but he really rebels against the king. He will be surely punished for this trick of dressing himself up so." 

 In this essay we will see how the Jewish Halacha and laws forbid the secular person any access to Jewish culture, communal or ceremonial involvement. We wonder why the public which values democracy and critical thought has abandoned the wealth of Jewish culture to the Rabbinic-Charedi public which jealously guards its hide-bound rituals as unchangeable, which lives off the secular public and yet ridicules it, which sees this public as inferior and discriminates against it every chance it gets, on all Halachic issues. 

Hilchot Mamrin 3 Halacha 1

Whoever serves false gods willingly, as a conscious act of defiance, is liable for כרת. If witnesses who warned him were present, he is [punished by being] stoned to death. If he served [such gods] inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin offering.

Halacha 2

The gentiles established various different services for each particular idol and image. These services do not [necessarily] resemble each other. For example, Pe'or is served by defecating before it. Marculis is served by throwing stones at it or clearing stones away from it. Similarly, other services were instituted for other idols.
One who defecates before Marculis or throws a stone at Pe'or is free of liability until he serves it according to the accepted modes of service, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:30]: "[Lest one inquire about their gods, saying,] 'How did these nations serve their gods? I will do the same.'"
For this reason, a court must know the types of worship [practiced by gentiles], because an idolater is stoned to death only when we know that [he has worshiped a false god] in the mode in which it is traditionally worshiped.

Halacha 3

The warning [forbidding] such worship and the like is the verse [Exodus 20:5] which states: "Do not serve them."
When does the above apply? with regard to services other than bowing, slaughtering [an animal], bringing a burnt offering, and offering a libation. A person who performs one of these four services to any one of the types of false gods is liable, even though this is not its accepted mode of service.
How is this exemplified? A person who offers a libation to Pe'or or slaughters [an animal] to Marculis is liable, as [implied by Exodus 22:19]: "Whoever slaughters [an animal] to any deity other than God alone must be condemned to death."
[Liability for performing the other services can be derived as follows:] Slaughter was included in the general category of services [forbidden to be performed to false gods]. Why was it mentioned explicitly? To teach [the following]: Slaughter is distinct as one of the services of God, and one who slaughters to false gods is liable to be executed by stoning. Similarly, with regard to any service which is distinct as one of the services of God, if a person performs it in worship of other gods, he is liable.
For [a similar reason, Exodus 34:14] states: "Do not bow down to another god," to teach that one is liable for bowing down [to another god] even when this is not its accepted mode of service. The same applies to one who brings a burnt offering or pours a libation. Sprinkling [blood] is considered the same as pouring a libation.

This is Maimonides' ruling on idol worship. Those who worship idols are liable to being "cut off" כרת (Karet) in the same way that those who eat regular bread during Passover are liable. I have heard different opinions from different rabbis on that topic. None of them say that it means that one ceases to be a Jew. Chabad defines Karet as "excision of the soul" and the Modern Orthodox rabbis I have known said that Karet is a shortening of one's life. Nothing here about an idolator being rendered a non-Jew.

Mishneh Torah, Avodat Kochavim: Halacha 5

A Jew who serves false gods is considered like a gentile in all regards and is not comparable to a Jew who violated another transgression punishable by being stoned to death. An apostate who worships false gods is considered to be an apostate with regard to the entire Torah.
Similarly, Jewish minnim are not considered to be Jews with regard to any matter. Their repentance should never be accepted, as [implied by Proverbs 2:19]: "None that go to her repent, nor will they regain the paths of life."
The minnim are those who stray after the thoughts of their hearts, concerning themselves with the foolish matters mentioned above, until they ultimately transgress against the body of Torah [law] arrogantly, with scorn, with the intent of provoking God's anger, and yet say that there is no sin involved.
It is forbidden to talk to them or to reply to them at all, as [Proverbs 5:8] states: "Do not come close to her door." [It can be assumed that] a min's thoughts are concerned with false gods.

Notice that those who are considered minnim are considered non-Jews. Since Maimonides had also ruled that anyone who denied the Oral Law's divine origin and authority are considered minnim, secular Jews and Reform Jews would be placed in exactly the same legal situation as Jews who believe in Jesus.

One might argue that Maimonides, the Karaites are to be respected as Jews, this is due to the fact that children of captivity are not liable for the same punishments for heresy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Jews raised to believe in Jesus, logically, are entitled to the same benefits.

Other Sources
I have not been able to track down the following responsa:
Responsa VII #292
Satmar Rav Divrei Torah on Yoreh Deah #59
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Even HaEzer volume 4 number 53
Radbaz, Responsa III, 415
Moses Isserles to Yoreh Deah 268.12
Hoffman, Melamed Leho-il II, 84

Without having the source, it is impossible to determine if the source says what this rabbi thinks it says. If I had to guess, the rabbi is misunderstanding the idea of a legal fiction.

A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule which was not necessarily designed to be used in that way. One common legal fiction in the United States is where a corporation is considered, for legal purposes, to be a person. This does not mean that a corporation is literally a person.

Similarly, one has to distinguish between the rabbinic view that Jewish Christians (and all non-Orthodox Jews) are to be considered as though they were Gentiles i.e. having no special Jewish privileges, and the idea that such Jews actually become Gentiles. Certainly one can support the former in rabbinic tradition, even though it never had unanimous consent. The latter, though, is the subject of this post.

Brother Daniel
This issue gets further confused with the Brother Daniel case in Israel. The short version of the story: a Jew who was sheltered by a Catholic family during the Holocaust became a Catholic. When Israel was formed as a nation, they had this Law of Return, where anyone whose mother or father was Jewish could receive immediate Israeli citizenship.

Brother Daniel tried to gain citizenship under this law and was denied it because he was a Catholic. Brother Daniel then obtained citizenship through naturalization. This was due to a ruling by a secular court, and has no bearing on Orthodox Rabbinic Law. In short, it is an Israeli law, not a Jewish law.

In fact, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel believed that Brother Daniel should have been allowed to make Aliyah under the Law of Return, but it was the secular court that decided against it.

Conclusion

There simply is no consistent basis in rabbinic tradition to say that Jews who believe in Jesus become non-Jews. Nor is there any basis to say that such Jews are cut off in a way that Jewish Muslims, Jewish Buddhists, Jewish Atheists, and Jewish Wiccans are not.

Furthermore, since most Jews are not raised Orthodox, Jewish law considers such individuals to be children of captivity. This means that the harsh injunctions do not apply to these groups. Again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If people raised as secular Jews get the captivity exemption, then Jews who were raised to believe in Jesus should get the same treatment. Since the only people who do not get the captivity exemption are those raised as Orthodox Jews, it follows that Jews raised secular who later believe in Jesus are just as subject to the captivity exemption as when they were secular.

One can also look at the issue logically. Orthodox Judaism does not consider Christianity in any form to be idolatry for a Gentile (and a few of the sages don't consider it idolatry for a Jew), nor is a Gentile under any obligation to any of the 613 commandments, but only to the 7 laws of Noah.

First, the rabbinic idea of shituf would make no sense if a Jew could become a non-Jew by believing in Jesus. Shituf, in rabbinic tradition, is a special category reserved for Christian theology. It is considered idolatry for a Jew but not idolatry for a non-Jew. If a Jew becomes a non-Jew by believing in Jesus, then it would be impossible for anyone to commit the sin of idolatry by worshiping Jesus. This would contradict all of the rabbi's prooftexts from Maimonides that worship of Jesus is idolatry for a Jew.

Second, if it were the case that a Jew who believes in Jesus literally became a non-Jew, then any Orthodox Jew who is tired of following the detailed, micromanagement of the rabbis could simply exempt himself by becoming a Christian. Think of the kind of leverage that would give Christian missionaries! In fact, if Orthodox Judaism were to hold to such a view, I would recommend that Christian missionaries target Orthodox Jewish communities and say the following:

"I know that many of you Orthodox Jews are tired of holding to such a detailed system of Jewish Law. Your diets are so restricted that you can't eat at most restaurants. Kosher food is expensive and not as good as non-kosher food. You get constipated every Passover and have to go through all that trouble of cleaning your kitchen. You can't eat or drink on various fast days, which can be physcially painful. And you're constantly under the heel of your rabbi, having to do whatever he tells you.

"How would you like to be freed from that? I know that many of you would like to go off the derech and do what you want, but fear divine judgment. But under Orthodox Jewish Law, if you join our church, you are fully exempt and can live under the 7 Laws of Noah without fear of reprisal even if we are wrong! So if we are right, it is in your best interest to get baptized and join us. And even if we are wrong, it is still in your best interest to get baptized and join us!"

So yeah. If Jews who believed in Jesus became non-Jews, it would be the most amazing gift to Christian Missionaries who deal with Jews.

Finally, if someone still wants to say that a Jew who believes in Jesus becomes a non-Jew. Ask them if such a person can become a valid Shabbos goy. The Halacha is very clear that they cannot (ask any Orthodox rabbi if you doubt me). Why not? It is permitted for a Gentile Christian to be a Shabbos goy, so their belief in Jesus cannot invalidate them. So what is the reason? It's because such a person is still a Jew!

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 80

Romans 10:6-9, "Say not in thine heart. Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above); or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead). But what saith it (viz. Scripture)? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou, shalt be saved.

If those to whom Paul was preaching had referred to the thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy, they might have perceived that the words of Moses were misconstrued by the Apostle. That part of our law tells us merely that it is within the reach of every man to be penitent, and obtain mercy and pardon.

Our lawgiver having spoken in general terms, '"If thou wilt turn to the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and all thy soul," etc., goes on to say, "For the commandment which I give thee this day is, not hidden from thee, nor is it too far off. It is not in heaven that thou mightest say, Who shall go up into heaven for us, and bring at down for us that we may practice it?" etc.

It having been shown that the nature of the gift of mercy is put in juxtaposition with the ease of acquiring it, we are enabled to comprehend the expression, "This matter is very near unto thee, it is in thy heart and thy mouth that thou mayest do it." 

 Again, Troki accuses Paul of not quoting Scripture literally enough. If you've learned anything from this series on Faith Strengthened, you'll realize that the rabbis took all of Paul's creative liberties and then some. Moses did state that the Torah is not in heaven, so that we could not complain that it is out of our reach. Paul takes this passage and applies it to Jesus, implying that Jesus has the authority and importance of the Torah itself.

He is also giving the same point that Moses gave. Just as the Torah is not impossible to keep, neither is Messiah out of your reach. Salvation is available to you. It is merely a matter of accepting it. Repent and believe, and you will receive regeneration and salvation.

Moses also wrote:

“For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
(Deuteronomy 30:11-14)

Again, Williams  quotes rabbinic tradition to show that it takes even greater liberties with interpreting the Scriptures than Paul has taken.

Did he not remember that this very passage of Deuteronomy is quoted with a far from literal interpretation of its original meaning in T. B. Erubin, 55a (compare also the Yalqut in loco)? "Rabba said, It is not in heaven: that is, It [the Law] will not be found with him who exalts his mind upon it [or, within himself] like the heavens, and it will not be found with him who extends his knowledge upon it [or, within himself] like the sea. R. Jochanan used to say: Not in heaven means: It will not be found with the conceited. And 'it is not beyond the sea' means: It will not be found with pedlars or travelling merchants."* So, somewhat similarly, a writer also quoted in the Yalqut tells us that the passage means that "The Torah is not to be found with astrologers, whose faith is in the heavens." Perhaps I may be allowed to add one further example showing how far the Jewish mind is able to go in its usage of Scripture phrases. In the Baal hatturim (by Jacob ben Asher, died 1340) on the passage it is pointed out that the initial letters of the Hebrew words for "Who shall go up for us to heaven" form that all-important word, "Circumcision," and the final letters the word for LORD, showing that none shall ascend near the LORD except he be circumcised. Yet R. Isaac implies that St. Paul, here and elsewhere, shows ignorance of Scripture, because he does not quote it in its primary meaning!

Rabbinic tradition also states that forgiveness comes from sorrow and repentance. In other words, one must confess and believe in order to be forgiven of one's sins. What complaints would a rabbi have if Paul said virtually the same thing?

The passage also has a connection to Hosea 3:

For the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or household gods. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days.
(Hosea 3:4-5)

God's condition for forgiveness is repentance. In Hosea's case, it is repentance towards God and toward David's line. The Ten Tribes rebelled against God's appointed king, and by extension against God.

Paul also says "If you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Why? Because "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

That is a quote from Joel 2:32, that "All who call upon the name of Yahweh will be saved." This is not the kind of comparison you make to a creature, even an exalted archangel.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 79

Romans 9:33, "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion, a stumbling stone and a rock of offence, and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

This passage is a collection of short sentences, ignorantly or ingeniously packed together, to show that Jesus is the only Saviour of those who found "their stumbling block in Zion." In chapter 8:14 of Isaiah, we find, "And he shall be for a sanctuary and a stumbling stone, as a rock of offence to the two houses of Israel, and as a snare and a gin to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." And the prophet continues, (chap. 28:16), "Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold I have laid a foundation in Zion, a tried stone, a precious comer stone, well established, well founded. He who believes shall not hasten (away from it)."

Another incorrect quotation from our Scriptures is also to be found in Romans 10:11, "For the Scripture saith. Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Peter in his first Epistle, (chap. 2:6), quotes from treacherous memory, "Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

By arbitrarily detaching or connecting various words of Scripture to verify, doctrines, not taught in our Sacred Books, is, according to our opinion, its own refutation, and highly blameable.

Troki lays two charges against two different passages of the New Testament. First, let's address the concluding passage of Romans 9:

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him
will not be put to shame.”
 (Romans 9:30-33)

In this passage, Paul reiterates what he had been preaching in Galatians. We gain our righteousness by faith and not by works. In other words, we pursue God by faith, and that faith results in salvation, which produces works. If salvation and regeneration came before faith, then it would not be true that we are saved by faith apart from works. We would be saved apart from faith and works. From a different perspective, one could also say we are saved by both faith and works. But under the view that regeneration precedes faith, there is no consistent basis to say that we are saved by faith and not works.

Isaiah writes:

therefore thus says the Lord GOD,
“Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion,
 a stone, a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation:
‘Whoever believes will not be in haste.’
(Isaiah 28:16) 

 Or as we read in Psalm 118:

The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.
 (Psalm 118:22)

And Paul writes in Romans 10:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
 (Romans 10:8-13)

Again, direct quotation is an artifact of modern printing. Ancient Greek did not have any markings for direct quotation. Ancient writers felt free to paraphrase what others said and wrote. So where does Troki find fault in these passages? The original references state that God has laid a cornerstone which serves as a sure foundation to those who rely on it.

Paul echoes this and adds that this is a stone of stumbling, echoing his words in 1 Corinthians:

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
 (1 Corinthians 1:22-25)

 So Paul fuses these two images together. This stumbling block to the Jews is the same block which serves as Zion's foundation.

A. Lukyn Williams gives references in rabbinic literature, where the rabbis take the same liberties that Paul takes in this passage:

It may be noted that a glimpse of the purport of Isaiah's words seems to be found in T. B. Sanhedrin, 38a: "The Son of David does not come until the two Houses of Israel have perished, namely the Head of the Captivity in Babylon and the Patriarch in the land of Israel, as it is said, And He shall be for a sanctuary," etc. (Isa 8:14). The passage is obscure, but it appears to mean that Messiah is to be both a sanctuary and also a cause of harm and destruction.

Similarly we find Bechai on Exodus 14:31 (p. 92) referring Isaiah 28:16 to the Messiah. The whole passage is worth quoting as a typical illustration of the use of the Old Testament Scriptures by Jewish writers: "'Unless I had believed to see the goodness of the LORD': Faith (Emunah) in the coming of the Redeemer, for this is a great cornerstone in the Law. For it is written: Behold I lay in Zion, etc. (Isa 28:16), and every one who believeth has much merit. That is what is said of Abraham, who was the root of faith (Emunah), 'and He believed in the LORD, and He counted it to him for righteousness' (Gen 15:6). And behold he meriteth to attain to Gan Eden, for it is said, 'Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth Emunim may enter in' (Isa 26:2). And he merited to attain to the life of the world to come, for it is said, 'but the righteous shall live by his Emunah' (Hab 2:4)."

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 78

Romans 9:24-26, "Even us, whom he has called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. As he says also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people, and her beloved which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them. Ye are not my people, there shall they be called the children of the living God."

It is immaterial for us to know whether it was ignorance or intentional perversion which prompted Paul to refer to Hosea for a purpose which that prophet had not in view. It suffices to refer to Hosea 1, in order to ascertain that the prophet alludes not to the Gentiles, but exclusively to Israel, who, when obedient to the law of God, were to be called Ammi, ("my people"), and Ruhamah, ("she who is pitied"); but when disobedient they were to be called Lo-Ammi, ("not my people"), and Lo Ruhamah ("not to be pitied"). And again in verse 10, we read, "And it shall come to pass that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God."

Paul writes this section as part of a long argument. Protestants often misinterpret this verse as asserting that the question as to who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is predetermined by God. Going to heaven is not a topic addressed by Romans 9, but by Romans 10. In that chapter, we learn that going to heaven is conditional, where those who confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead are the ones who will go to heaven.

One can argue from Paul's quotation of Isaiah that he uses the term "saved" yet this is not about who goes to heaven, but which group of Jews avoids getting wiped out.  The children of Israel would be like sands of the sea, yet those who fled to Egypt and those who abandoned God for idols would be killed off or assimilated into the pagan cultures.

Romans 9 is about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. It is God's sovereign choice, not on who goes to heaven, but on which group God will use to complete his mission. Instead of electing the Jews to bring the news of Messiah to the world, he elected his church to that task. If someone asks how God would dare do this to the Jews, Paul answers that you are not in a position to answer back to God.

Romans 9 concludes with this reference to Hosea.

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
 and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
 there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
only a remnant of them will be saved,
for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.”
And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.” (Romans 9:22-29)

Paul's reference to vessels prepared for glory and vessels prepared for destruction is a reference to Romans 2:

Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. (Romans 2:3-5)

This is how God hardened Pharaoh's heart. He did not directly cause his heart to be hard, but used his forebearance and patience to delay pouring his wrath on Pharaoh. God delayed Pharaoh's destruction to allow the man to become, of his own non-deterministic free will, as wicked and deserving of wrath as he could be. In that sense, God turned the man into a vessel of wrath.

Hosea reads as follows:

She conceived again and bore a daughter. And the LORD said to him, “Call her name No Mercy, for I will no more have mercy on the house of Israel, to forgive them at all. But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the LORD their God. I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen.”

When she had weaned No Mercy, she conceived and bore a son. And the LORD said, “Call his name Not My People, for you are not my people, and I am not your God.”

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Children of the living God.” And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head. And they shall go up from the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel.
(Hosea 1:6-11)

When Hosea addresses this passage, he is addressing it to Israel as opposed to Judah! He is addressing this passage to the Northern Kingdom only, not to the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Paul applies this passage to state that the children of the Northern Kingdom will be like the sands of the sea, and yet only a remnant of them will not be wiped out in the Assyrian exile.

A. Lukyn Williams gives Talmudic quotes where the rabbis apply passages meant for Jews to Gentiles.

Yet R. Isaac, as a good scholar, ought to have been well aware that to quote the passage of Gentiles was a thoroughly Jewish proceeding. Karaite though he was, he knew his Talmud, and could use it when occasion offered. He ought, then, to have remembered that in T. B. Pesachim, 87b, R. Eliezer [ben Hyrcanos], in proof of the proposition that in the hour of the LORD's anger He remembereth mercy, says: "The LORD sent Israel into captivity among the nations only that proselytes might be added to them: for it is written: And I will sow her to me in the land (Hosea 2:23, Heb. 25). And a man sows a seah only to gather many cors [one cor contains thirty seahs]. Then R. Jochanan proves the same truth from the verse: And I will have mercy on her upon whom I had not had mercy."* Rashi's comment on R. Jochanan's quotation is: "They who were not my people clave to them, and became my people." Thus we have Rashi in the eleventh century, and RR. Eliezer and Jochanan in the end of the first century, explaining passages in Hosea as referring to the conversion of Gentile.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 77

Romans 5:14, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."
Other copies have the contrary. "Who had sinned after the similitude," etc.

If death reigned to the days of Moses only, how is the question to be explained: How could Jesus be considered the Saviour of mankind, if the dominion of death had been made to cease through the laws of Moses, (Lev 18:5) "which, if a man performeth, he liveth in them?" See the question fully discussed in chapter one of the First Part of this work.

As Moses writes:

You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.
(Leviticus 18:4-5)

And Paul writes regarding sin and death in Adam:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because [of which] all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (Romans 5:12-18)

 Paul never asserts that death's reign ended in the days of Moses. He said that even without the Mosaic Law, death still reigned. One does not need the Law in order for there to be condemnation for sin, lest anyone argue that we were fine until we were given the Law. It is a given that death reigned since Moses; Paul is merely arguing that death reigned before Moses as well.

This is a different look at sin than Paul learned in his Jewish background. Paul's upbringing would have told him that the problems began when Israel started disobeying the Law given at Sinai. Paul is now arguing that the problem with sin began not with disobeying Moses, but with Adam himself.

The promise of Leviticus is explained in detail in Deuteronomy 28. Eternal life is not promised as a reward for keeping God's commandments. I agree with rabbis like Asher Meza who argue that there is no mitzvah to go to heaven. The commands of Moses have nothing to do with going to heaven after you die. They are commands for the nation of Israel, where God would dispense earthly and political blessings for the nation for obedience, as well as pain and exile for disobedience. It is in this sense that by keeping the commandments you will live. Your nation will see prosperity, and your people will not be victims of ethnic cleansing.

One might also argue that the death mentioned is spiritual death rather than physical death. This is unlikely given the parallel in 1 Corinthians:

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
 (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) 

This is the death of which Paul speaks. It is the death of our bodies, and our lack of hope if we do not have resurrection.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 76

Acts 28:3-6. Paul being bitten by a viper, felt no harm from the effects of the poisonous bite, and was, therefore, held by the barbarians surrounding him, to be a God.

The ease with which a human being was deified in those days, accounts for the astonishing superstitious belief that Jesus was at the same time mortal and a God.

Acts 28 is the last chapter in the book, which does not so much conclude as it just stops. No mention is made of Paul's death, and no mention is made about the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple. Both would have made excellent points for the author, so I consider this evidence that Acts was written long before the destruction of that temple.

This chapter begins with Paul on Malta. The first thing to note is that the term "chief man" was the actual term used for the Maltese leader during the middle of the First Century. A later forger would not have been able to get that and hundreds of other details right. For more on the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts, take a look at this video:


To address Troki's point, he states that it was easy for someone to think that a human was a god. This is true. The ancient Greeks and Romans did believe that the gods were capable of taking on human form and walking among us. What was not easy for them to believe is that the universe is a creature of one supreme God.

The ancient Greco-Roman religions saw their gods in much the same way that the Stargate movie and TV series saw them. They are creatures of the universe, but far more powerful than us. These ascended beings could give power and aid to weaker mortal creatures. This is utterly disanalogous to the doctrines of Christianity which teach that the creator and sustainer of all things took on corporeal form, as Paul writes on Colossians:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
 (Colossians 1:15-20)

A. Lukyn Williams takes a different approach to this accusation:

On the account of Simon Magus given in the Acts our Rabbi remarks that he finds in a Polish work called the Great Old Chronicle* that Simon performed many miracles by the aid of magic, and that therefore he was worshipped as a god. So, the Rabbi concludes, was it with Jesus. The Rabbi further illustrates his theory by the incident at Malta recorded in Acts 28:6, when the islanders said St. Paul must be a god because he shook off the viper from his hand and was uninjured. The last comparison is of little weight. For the chance remark of the uneducated barbarian produced no belief in the divinity of the Apostle. Nor is there much point in the comparison between Simon Magus and our Lord.

What force has the Great Old Chronicle, written a thousand years or more after the events, as a witness to the truth of Simon's doings? And even if it were true that Simon wrought miracles by magic, how does this afford proof that Jesus wrought them by the same method? Besides, is the moral difference between the two to go for nothing? Do Jews really intend to place a charlatan like Simon on the same level as Him who has been the means of raising whole nations to the highest position in the scale of ethics? Is it thinkable that the beneficent effect of the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth has been due to fraud and magic? We Christians appeal confidently to the moral sense of every fair-minded and cultivated Jew, and ask if it is possible that good fruit can grow out of an evil tree? If not, it is time to have done with such unsavoury comparisons, and to recognize the unique grandeur of Jesus of Nazareth.