Jan 29, 07:10 PM

I thought I would post this from my blog from a year ago. I was walking home one Friday night and experienced a missionary mugging! It was written to a friend of mine after the incident.  Feedback is welcome!

Missionary Mugging

I just wanted to let you know that I got mugged tonight. That's right, it was a Missionary Mugging. I was walking home in preparation for Shabbat and noticed some Missionaries had set up a little table on the sidewalk and was accosting people as they walked by. I didn't feel like dealing with them and attempted to pass by unnoticed. I failed. One of the Missionaries handed me something that looked like money.

Missionary: "Here's a million dollars just for you and you can put it in the bank".

Adam: "huh, what is this".

Missionary: "Read the back".

Adam: I flipped it over and it said "If you died today would you go to heaven"? I immediately made a face and handed the money back to him. "No thanks, I'm not a Christian", and tried to move on.

Missionary: "well that's why I'm giving it to you, do you believe in heaven, or are we reincarnated or do you just not believe in anything".

Adam: I thought to myself, that the Missionary had lost his chance to walk away. Since he was forcing the discussion I would have to respond, which is usually an uncomfortable experience for Christians for they are rarely expecting to speak with someone like me.
"No", I replied.

Missionary: "No you don't believe in anything?" he asked.

Adam: "No, I don't believe in heaven, but I do believe that we go somewhere".

Missionary: "Where do you believe we go", he goaded.

Adam: "According to the teachings of Israel those who earn it are allowed to take their place in the world to come. The world to come is much different than the Christian idea of heaven."

Missionary: "What religion are you"?

Adam: "I am a Noachide, it is the path of non-Jews according to the revelation of Sinai"

Missionary: Looking puzzled he then asked me, "What category would you place your religion"?

Adam: Clearly he was trying to put me in a box that would better aid his missionizing. "I would place myself in the category of a non-Jew who follows the Noahide Laws. The Noachide Laws being named after Noah, who survived the flood and who, through his children, repopulated the world".

Missionary: "Where did you find this" he asked bewildered.

Adam: "In the Talmud of course, there they list the Seven Noachide Laws. These are the laws that every person, unless they are Jewish are expected to follow. We should follow the Seven Laws not the ten commandments".

Missionary: "What are these Seven Laws"?

Adam: "The Seven Noachide Laws are:

1. The prohibition against idolatry
2. The prohibition against blasphemy
3. The prohibition against theft
4. The prohibition against murder
5. The prohibition against illicit relationships
6. The prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal
7. The command to establish courts of justice

Again, these are the basic expectations God places upon those not commanded to fulfill the 613 commandments given to Israel at mount Sinai".

It was clear that this was new territory for my mislead mugger and he was struggling to both get his mind around this thing that he had heard for the first time, and the need to spread his "good news". I've always felt no news is good news, but I was never a very good Christian even before I left the flock.

Getting the conversation back on track he asked,

Missionary: "Where does Jesus fit into this"?

Adam: "No where, Jesus has nothing to do with the Noachide Laws. Jesus has nothing to do with Judaism in any way".

Missionary: "What is your opinion of Jesus, do you think he really existed"?

Adam: "Maybe, I see no problem with that"

Missionary: "Do you believe he was nailed upon the cross"?

Adam: "It's possible, I have no problem with that either".

Missionary: "Do you believe he rose from the dead"?

Adam: "No, I don't believe that story, but I can tell you that even if he did rise from the dead this would prove nothing. Judaism is not a religion of miracles. Miracles are unreliable as a source of proof. In fact, we are told in Deuteronomy that a person could come and perform miracles and tell the future, but if he tells us to follow other gods then he is a false prophet. It is possible for Jesus or anyone to perform incredible miracles and still be a false prophet. What matters the most is whether or not he upholds the laws of Sinai".

Missionary: "How long have you studied this"?

Adam: "About ten years."

Missionary: "Were you always a Noachide"?

Adam: "No, I grew up as a Christian, but eventually rejected Christianity"

Missionary: "What do you mean you were a Christian"?

Adam: Almost every time I reveal this to a Christian they immediately assume that I was probably only a Christian in name only. It seems impossible to them that a serious Christian could ever turn away from Christianity. I'm sure in part this probably has something to do with their beliefs on salvation. After all, his question "if you died today would you go to heaven", seems to imply that if you are a Christian the answer to this question would be yes. However, if you look at Christian theology, or at least the theologies of Christianity that I have examined, there is as much certainty that a devout Christian will go to heaven as there is that a heathen will go to hell. What I mean is that because over our lives we human beings take many courses, it could be that the devout Christian could reach a point in their life where they are no longer devout, and the heathen could reach a point where he is no longer a heathen but a Christian.

The only guarantee that Christianity can make to people is that if upon your death you die as a devout Christian who has lived up to whatever vague expectations Christianity sets up for you then you will get into heaven. Therefore, the whole question of "if you died today would you go to heaven" is absurd, even from a Christian perspective.

I replied to his question of what I meant that I was a Christian very simply, "I grew up as a Baptist, went to church, the whole thing". Of course this doesn't really mark me out as an all-star Christian, and I never claimed to be. However, to suspect that the reason I am no longer a Christian is because I didn't take Christianity seriously enough is silly. I can say this because while in college, as you know, I was constantly challenged by Christians to defend my beliefs. As part of my defense I studied Christianity very in-depth, reading books and essays on Christian theology, attending lectures, and asking questions of my friends who were Christian. The truth is that I probably reached a point where I knew more about Christianity and what they believed and why they believed it than your average Christian, at least this is what I was told by Christians. I have always felt that I gave Christianity its fair chance to convince me and after four years of being challenged not only was I unconvinced, but Christian arguments became weaker and weaker. In fact, I usually know what arguments Christians will make so debating Christians is not very challenging. My studies of Torah have had the opposite effect. The more I learn Torah the stronger my knowledge in Hashem becomes and the closer I feel to the God of everything and everyone. I also have an increased awareness of my ignorance, and the drive to reduce that ignorance as much as I can. Also, I cannot remember the last boring or predictable conversation I had regarding the Torah.

Missionary: "Why did you leave Christianity"?

Adam: "Oddly enough my departure from Christianity was a result of trying to understand Jesus better. I reasoned that if Jesus were a Jew and most of the people he spoke with were Jewish, and then whatever he said would probably be best understood if I knew something about Judaism. From there I began to study Judaism. The first thing to go was the deity of Christ. There isn't a single verse in the Tanach or "Old Testament" as Christians call it, which supports the notion of a man being God. In fact the opposite is true the Torah completely condemns such an idea where it says in Numbers "God is not a man...". You cannot get any clearer than that. Jesus was a man therefore it was impossible for him to be God.

The next thing to go was Jesus as the Messiah. In order for Jesus to be the Messiah he would have needed to accomplish a certain number of things, at the very least he would need to be involved in regathering the exiles of Israel back to the land, fight the wars of Israel, uphold the Torah and encourage others to uphold the Torah, and the Messiah will be involved in helping the world to realize world peace, but Jesus did not accomplish any of those things. If Jesus did not do the job of the Messiah then how can we grant him the title of Messiah?

Finally, I dispensed with the idea that Jesus was a good Rabbi. I decided that even if he were a good Rabbi I know so many better Rabbis, like the Rabbis of the Talmud, those rabbinic masters who taught the oral tradition from Sinai, even Rabbis today I would consider better Rabbis. Also, whatever Jesus was trying to say has probably come down to us in a garbled form. Plus, I have to doubt that Jesus was a very good Rabbi, to have been so misunderstood by his followers, to cause people to think he was God, there must have been something lacking in his teaching".

The missionary I was speaking with although asking lots of questions was clearly looking for an opening some weakness in my understanding. I believe he thought he had found one when he next asked,

Missionary: "When you said that "God is not a man" I think you and I agree on this completely because God was not a man. What we pray to is not a man-Jesus but to a part of the trinity that dwelled in the form of Jesus. Have you heard of the trinity before"?

Adam: "Of course"

Missionary: "We do not believe that God is a man, rather that God has one essence but is three persons. The three persons of God are the ways that God relates to himself internally and relates externally to us, but they do not violate the fact that God is one".

Adam: I did not wish the conversation to go down philosophical lines, because I have learned that very often this is either accidentally or intentionally a distraction from the subject at hand. The "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" (page 732) explains in detail how the trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

As interesting a discussion as it is, the truth is as the Rambam says it, "Those who believe that God is One, and that He has many attributes, declare the unity with their lips, and assume plurality in their thoughts. This is like the doctrine of the Christians, who say that He is one and He is three, and that the three are one" (Guide for the Perplexed, Ch. 50, p. 67, Dover). Honestly having a philosophical debate on the trinity gets you no where. This is what I responded to the Missionary,

"It is impossible for you to make a philosophical argument for the trinity. The best you can say is the trinity is an article of faith. All you, as a Christian, can do is accept the trinity because you accept the Christian religion, but you cannot defend the trinity philosophically. The fact that it cannot be proven philosophically leaves you with a problem because it is impossible to defend the trinity from the scriptures, and by scriptures I mean the Hebrew Scriptures". Of course I believe it is also possible to prove that Jesus never claimed divinity from the New Testament, but I have a personal dislike for citing the New Testament. Bringing up the New Testament usually distracts the Christian from the issue under discussion. The conversation winds up lost in a mind field of apologetics.

Missionary: "This is not true; it is possible to make an argument for the trinity". The "Old Testament" uses the word 'elohim' and it's a plural word", he began.

Adam: I jumped in before he could continue the very bad argument he was trying to make. "Why, does the Torah use the world 'elohim', and it is a plural word you are right about that. The yud-mem ending of the word tells us that it is plural. So it seems strange that a book (the Torah) that claims strict monotheism would use such a word. The first time we see the word is in the story of creation "In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). We see this word later in the Torah, but it's not used to refer to God, but to Moses. Exodus 7:1 says "...you will be an 'elohim' to Pharoah and Aaron will be your prophet". Notice that the same word 'elohim' is used in Exodus 7:1 to refer to Moses as the word in Genesis 1:1 where it is talking about God. Are we then to conclude that there is more than one Moses? Remember, I have already admitted that 'elohim' is plural, so does this mean that we should think that Moses is plural?

We must say this if we are going to say that the usage of 'elohim' in Genesis 1:1 means that God is plural. The fact is we don't believe that 'elohim' in Exodus 7:1 is telling us that Moses is more than one, or that he has multiple personalities (as the Christian trinity says about God). Let me tell you what this word 'elohim' is telling us. 'Elohim' come from the word eloh which means power, the term 'elohim' can be understood as powers, it's indicating to us that God is the author of all the forces in the universe, all the powers of nature and beyond and that He is in control of them. With his prophet Moses or with angels or kings, or judges who are also called 'elohim' it indicates that they control a great deal of power. That's it. That is all it means".

Missionary: "Do you believe the New Testament is reliable"?

Adam: "Not really, I've done some research into this subject and the problem with the New Testament is that at the beginning of the first century, at the birth of Christianity, you had this explosion of competing Christian theologies, sort of like the Cambrian explosion of life in the geological record. All of these competing sects had their scriptures and those that used the same scriptures would manipulate them to reflect their particular theology. There is also the fact that the New Testament you read and cherish today is the result of not a solid tradition of textual transmission, but the piecing together of many different fragments. I admit it has been a while since I have studied this subject, but back when I was interested in this subject, from all the research I had done, it seemed clear to me that the New Testament is unreliable".

Missionary: "This is a subject that I have spent a lot of time looking into and studying, biblical criticism", he said. "You're right, there are thousands of fragments, but in those fragments there isn't a disagreement over any verses dealing with doctrine."

Adam: "Actually this is not true at all. In fact we have fragments that are doctrinally in opposition. If one camp believed Jesus was a god they would have the verse reflect that belief. If, on the other hand, you had a group who believed he were human their version of the same verse would reflect that. You had groups intentionally changing parts of the New Testament to reflect their theology" I informed him.

Jacob Scharff reminded me when I was recounting this part of the discussion that there were always major theological rifts between the various groups of Christians. In fact, half of the members of the Council of Nicea left because of disagreements over theology. For Christians to pretend that there has ever been consistency to the Christian religion prior to the Catholic Church is laughable.

Missionary: "This is just like with the Old Testament, we know that there are errors in parts of the Old Testament, but I believe 100% in the Old Testament and its reliability even though there are those errors. It's the same way with the New Testament. By comparing the other versions we're able to deduce the original material."

Adam: This comment of his is typical of Christians to find an argument used against the New Testament and try to turn it around to show you that you do not hold consistently to the same position when your own material is challenged.

In truth, this is not unreasonable and I have always done my best when hearing arguments against other religions to see if the argument could be just as easily leveled at the Torah. I admit, this has helped me stay away from many fallacious arguments. That's why when someone tries to compare the Tanach and the Torah in this way to the New Testament I can immediately tell them, "You're comparing apples and oranges. The Torah has approximately nine mistakes. These mistakes are of the nature of a samech being used instead of a final mem. The amazing thing is that the Torah has been so well maintained for 3 ½ thousand years, in communities that had little or no contact for hundreds of years and yet their Torahs are in 99% agreement with one another. This demonstrates the reliability and the consistency of Jewish tradition. The New Testament (I am mainly referring to the gospels, the core of the New Testament) on the other hand has never maintained, for even a century a reliable copy until the printing press. It's not like we have three or four different copies but thousands of fragments many of which are at odds with one another".

Missionary: "But we have a wider number of manuscripts to compare to one another unlike the parts of the Old Testament", he responded.

Adam: "What does it matter if you have thousands of copies of unreliable material where as I have only a few copies of reliable material? If I were to print thousands of pages of a document on what color the White house is and on some of them it says the white house is red, and others say it is purple, while others say it's only slightly green and so forth and I spread these around and break them into fragments does the volume of pages and fragments make the false statements any more true? Absolutely not!

Let's say on the other hand I only have a few copies of documents saying the white house is located in Washington D.C. but in only a couple of places there is a typo, does the few number of copies make the document false? Absolutely not! It is impossible to compare the two".

"I will tell you that it has been a while since I have studied textual criticisms of Christianity, but ultimately this is not what makes Christianity impossible, only unlikely. What Makes Christianity impossible is that Christian theology is diametrically opposed to the Tanach. This is important because any authority that the New Testament or Christianity can claim is a result of linking itself to the Tanach. This means that because Christianity has agreed that the Tanach is authoritative the way for me to know whether or not I should follow Christianity is to test its claims against the teachings of the Tanach. The Tanach is very clearly in opposition to the claims that Christianity makes, and therefore philosophy, textual criticism, and the possibility that Jesus might have been a nice guy aside, it is impossible for a person who holds the Tanach as authoritative to give any credibility to Christianity".

Missionary: "What do you think about the sacrificial system"?

Adam: "What part of the sacrificial system are you referring to? There are many different kinds of sacrifices there are burnt offerings, sin offerings, wave offerings, guilt offerings, and thanksgiving offerings. Each sacrifice serves a different purpose. Non-Jews never brought sin offerings because those offerings were only relevant to Jews. Jews only brought sin-offerings for unintentional sins, but sin offerings weren't always brought because someone sinned. For example, a woman who gives birth will bring a sin offering and a burnt offering. Why is a woman who gave birth bringing a sin offering? Did she commit some sin in giving birth? Absolutely not! A woman who gives birth loses a level of holiness when she gives birth because she is carrying another human life inside of her. When the child is born she's lost something and the sin offering is recognition of that. The sin offering and burnt offering is being brought not because she has sinned, but to help bring her back into balance with Hashem; to regain her spiritual equilibrium".

Finally, the conversation wound down and he was ready to move on to someone else. He asked me for my e-mail address and promised to write some questions and send them to me. We parted warmly and I hope he writes, because I think that there is a world of knowledge that he has been unaware of until now, and it is a world of knowledge that anyone seeking a true relationship with Hashem needs. The more people we can get studying Torah the better this world will become.

I trust your trip has gone well and I look forward to hearing all about you adventures when you return home.

Shalom,

Adam