Heresy: Jewish and Pagan

After putting together the outline of a history of Jewish converts in the Orthodox Church that I had posted here earlier, there appeared to me to be a peculiar common element to the Church’s dealings with Jews throughout history – both Jews affiliated with Judaism and those who had converted to Christianity. I am not sure what to make of it, but will explore some ideas here.

The first chapter of this history, that of the Nazarene church from apostolic times and into the fifth century, is marked by a suspicion within the Gentile Church that the Nazarenes’ keeping of the Mosaic Law while professing Christ constituted a Judaizing heresy – though nothing in the Bible would necessarily support such a conclusion.

Later, in Byzantium, Church leaders denounced Judaism and wrote canon law meant to minimize contact between Jews and Christians – possibly out of fear that the well-established Jewish communities in cities of the Middle East will rival the Church for converts (this book, for instance, suggests this interpretation). In the Russian empire, from the fifteenth century onward, Jews were associated with the influential Judaizing heresy that honored the Old Testament and denigrated the Gospel. In post-Soviet Russia, various churchmen expressed suspicion of Father Alexander Men’, a charismatic priest and spiritual father to hundreds of people during the Soviet era; his Jewish identity and his support for the state of Israel were said to be a “Judaizing” danger for the Church.

What’s the theme? It seems that at least within Orthodoxy, the attitude toward Jews is marked by fear – a tangible nervousness that all things Jewish are a threat to the Church, specifically of a Judaizing nature: the threat that Jewish observance will be brought back as a requirement for salvation for all Christians, thus undermining the Gospel.

Some of this fear was perhaps grounded: the lines between Jewish sympathies, desire to observe Jewish law, and the treatment of Jewish law as necessary rather than optional for Christians, while easy to draw, are also easy to blur. (At the same time, it’s worth noting that various “Judaizing” heresies, such as the Seventh Day Adventist movement, seem to have arisen with no Jewish participation.)

But if Jews – apparently, even Christian Jews (as with the Nazarenes and Father Alexander Men’) – are a constant “Judaizing” threat, what about the pagans? Surely paganism – with its localization of deity and the attempt to co-opt or placate divine power to serve human needs and ambitions; its inherent resistance to the notion of a unique God – has nourished and informed the many heresies of Christendom (Marcionism, for an easy example); surely that connection is no more tenuous than that between Jews and the Judaizing heresy. But has canon law been written to forbid Christian intercourse with pagans? Has the Church been as harsh with those, for instance, whose devotion to the saints borders on worship of multiple gods, as it has been with the iconoclasts and others who wish to hearken back to Jewish conceptions of worship? Has the Church refused to tolerate paganisms within its own midst – has it not instead allowed pagan festivals to determine its holiday seasons, and pagan customs to penetrate the lives of its faithful?

My sense is that the answer to these questions is ‘no,’ but I am no scholar. Please comment if you have thoughts on this issue!

Above all, the main difference between the Church’s treatment of Jews and pagans seems to be that the latter were seen as a mission field, whereas Jews were considered a danger to the Church. Surely the synagogue could not be any scarier for Christian missionaries to go into than pagan societies practicing child sacrifice? Father Elias Friedman points out in Jewish Identity that it was almost as if the Gentile Church had so committed itself to the idea of Jewish unbelief, in order to justify its supercessionist theology of the Jews as a people hated by God, that it was disinclined to see Jews in the same way that it saw pagans: as individuals whose hearts can be converted to Christ.

Indeed, one might argue that, by and large (though certainly with notable exceptions) the manner in which Church had treated the Jews through much of the history of Christendom is disturbingly similar to the way in which God called His people to treat the pagans inhabiting the Promised Land: take no prisoners, broker no peace treaties, exile them from your land – or baptize by force. If this seems ironic, I am still trying to decide who the joke is on – the Jews or the Church.

I’ll continue writing on this topic – which is, as you can see, rather half-baked and subject to revision in my mind. If anyone has thoughts on the nature of Judaizing and pagan heresies, on the difference in the Church’s treatment of Jews and pagans, or on any related subject – particularly if your thoughts are informed by scholarly work, but even if they are not – do drop me a note as I attempt to explore this!

Advertisements

About The Groom's Family

I was born in Soviet Russia and grew up in Israel. I was baptized Orthodox Christian in 2006. Today my husband and I live in Northern Virginia. I would love to hear from you, so please leave a comment!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Heresy: Jewish and Pagan

  1. dr p says:

    Lea: I can’t resist your offer, so I won’t; here goes: the Book of Galatians is dedicated to answering the judaising error, leaving 65 books (by Proddie reckoning) countering the paganising error, and so I must ask which one God sees as the bigger threat to His people? Seventh Day Adventist judaising has nothing on the apparitions, shrines, scapulars, relics, yule logs, Christmas trees, Easter Eggs, etc, filched from the pagans, who can’t be blamed for wanting their Sol Invictus back. The canons you discussed come from churches imagining themselves to be God’s bullhorns, and so they would rather dig down deeper than climb out of the hole they dug for themselves – their theology requires it. Perhaps they should be slower to speak rubbish about Jews and quicker to hear St Paul’s encomium “to the Jew first?” Just a thought.

    • Glad you didn’t resist – your dose of cynicism is always helpful 🙂

      I think the interesting question here is about the way in which the Church’s relationship with the Jews is different from its relationship with the pagans. Why were the Jews treated as a Judaizing danger rather than a mission field, while the pagans were treated as a mission field rather than a “paganizing” danger? Obviously the history of Christianity’s emergence is important here, and there’s probably something in here about not being a prophet in one’s own city and shaking the dust off one’s feet… But it seems that’s not all there is to it, since when Jews are exposed to Christianity outside the oppressive ecclesiastical dynamic of traditional Christendom (e.g. in the US or even in the former Soviet Union), they are often quite interested. Not sure how best to think about this.

  2. dr p says:

    A few ideas: Let’s face it, the synagogue didn’t exactly welcome the Nazarenes with open arms, and once the caesars turned the tables I’m sure that the Christians got to exercise their grudges. Also, the pagans didn’t have the three major Jewish hangups of temple, kashruth, and circumcision to deal with whilst having had some salutary influence from the synagogue (ie, proselytes, righteous gentiles) cum societal scepticism of the old Roman religion. Finally, people being people, everyone likes to kick a loser, which is what the Jews were after 70 AD and following. Social opprobrium is highly contagious.

    • True – the synagogue was no friend of Christianity; but neither were most pagan societies while they had a choice…

      • dr p says:

        True enough, and let’s add that the rabbis never turned Christians into living tikki torches like Nero did. Nevertheless Jewish history shows that the three points I mentioned were the fuses and primers for revolt: the Maccabean and both Jewish Wars with Rome were fought over these issues. From the Christian perspective, temple melded into church, circumcision became baptism, and preaching to the Gentiles and the creation of a new man in Christ made kashruth obsolete – hence the Church struck at Jewry’s most sensitive areas.

        Paganism, on the other hand, was familiar territory for the Church, and missionary efforts thereto were much more widely successful than missions to the Jews (little has changed). Once pagan societies became friendly towards the Church, and the Church
        became more syncretistic, it lost more and more of its Jewish roots and acquired the ethnic prejudices of the pagan peoples – in no small part why Fr Bernstein mentioned that the EO’s and RC’s are at a disadvantage when dialoguing with Jews than are Protestants, who (at least the historic, confessional sorts) maintain an healthy respect for the OT and Jewish peoples, and require Hebrew learning in their seminaries).

      • On your last point – yes and no. On one hand, yes, the Protestant denominations conveniently came into existence in Western Europe around the time that the Jews got booted away from there to the Slavic lands; this enabled them to distance themselves from Christian anti-Semitism from the get-go, relative to the older churches, and they have done well in going from there.

        On the other hand, the non-sacramental nature of Protestantism, to my mind, makes it discontinuous from Mosaic Judaism, which is inherently sacramental in its centeredness on the Temple (“sacrament” here is understood as “real presence of God”). That, and Orthodox and Catholic worship is clearly built on the blueprint of Jewish worship in a way that most Protestant liturgy (or non-liturgy, depending on the denomination) is not.

        So it seems to me that who has the advantage in dialogue with the Jews depends on what kind of dialogue you want to have.

      • Also, it’s a stretch to accuse the Orthodox, particularly in America, of not having regard for the OT.

      • Doron says:

        It seems the height of hypocrisy censuring Biblical “Yiddishkeit” in the Church,
        when the pagan albeit “baptised” trappings of neo-caesarism’s “Romanitas”, and likewise,the neo- Byzantine/neo-Hellenist imperialism of “Romaiosini:” are ardently espoused by the few at the helm of Christ’s Ship.

  3. Yahnatan says:

    “But if Jews – apparently, even Christian Jews (as with the Nazarenes and Father Alexander Men’) – are a constant “Judaizing” threat, what about the pagans?”

    Great point.

    Another factor I think we should take into account is the fact that Christian theologians didn’t just view Christian Jews as a ‘Judaizing’ threat, but used “Judaizing” and “Jewish” as pejoratives among themselves. Chrysostom’s rhetoric wasn’t directed at Jews so much as “Judaizing Christians” (i.e. non-Jews); his strategy involved demonizing (literally?) the other.

    There are books on the way this contributed to anti-Semitism, but as far as the way it contributed to Christian identity, Paula Frederiksen’s Augustine and the Jews comes to mind, as well as Daniel Boyarin’s Border Lines.

  4. Yahnatan says:

    “Father Elias Friedman points out in Jewish Identity that it was almost as if the Gentile Church had so committed itself to the idea of Jewish unbelief, in order to justify its supercessionist theology of the Jews as a people hated by God, that it was disinclined to see Jews in the same way that it saw pagans: as individuals whose hearts can be converted to Christ.”

    This is also a powerful observation.

    I hope we never tire of pointing out that, by definition, it’s impossible for a Jew to “Judaize.” Why did the early church react the way it did to the idea of Gentiles Judaizing? Was it really such a great risk that they felt justified in going to such extremes in demonizing the other? Obviously the theological issues under dispute were perceived as having very high stakes as well.

    As a member of a movement begun by Jewish believers in Yeshua in which it’s possible to feel overwhelmed and outnumbered by Gentile presence within that very movement, I do wonder what would have happened if the early church hadn’t made Judaism its polar opposite. If Gentiles are not supposed to Judaize (in the sense of circumcision), why would they want to, and what’s supposed to counter that desire? I do feel that this is what Paul was working towards in Galatians and elsewhere…

    • strannik says:

      What does it mean that “It is impossible for a Jew to Judaize”?

      • @Yahnatan – It is certainly possible for a Jew to Judaize, if Judaizing is understood (as I think it is in the strictest sense) as acting on the belief that following the Mosaic Law is necessary for salvation. Circumcising one’s children and keeping kosher is not, in that sense, Judaizing; believing that, without doing so, one cannot be saved by Christ is Judaizing indeed. The problem is with the assumption that any Jew who follows Jewish Law as a Christian is necessarily Judaizing (and surely with the idea that any Jew who follows Jewish practice as a Jew will encourage Christians to Judaize!)

        A Gentile who takes on Jewish practice, therefore, can also do so with or without Judaizing. However, given that for Gentiles Jewish practice is a foreign element to be adopted, rather than a native element to be continued, there’s a higher probability that a Gentile who troubles himself to follow these practices would be doing
        so out of a Judaizing motive. Hence, I assume, all the patristic tirades against Judaizing.

  5. dr p says:

    @Yahnatan: the Christian answer to circumcision is baptism. What should “counter that desire” is the realisation that the Christian constitutes a tertium quid, as he is neither Jew nor Greek. Church should orient itself as such, rather than throwing holy water on pagan institutions and customs. Since the majority of Christians are gentile, it’s a lot easier for them to do this than to have to stop, consider, and (gasp!) change their mindsets and habits.

  6. strannik says:

    Excellent topic. “Seek and you shall shall find”

    The insistence on the part of the Jew that his race is particularly privileged among the nations if without Christ, without the Apostles, is a dead dog. Pointless. The Messiah has come, he is accepted and active in you or not. Is God done with the Jews? He fulfilled their religion two thousand years ago. The religion given to the Jews of old is no more. The temple is gone and it should be known that God desires not sacrifice. The pious Jews who Judaism has been forced (as Christianity is now being forced) to relinquish earthly power, or the sense of being over and against others and is left to humbly live out the calling of being chosen. It’s a long road.

    As far as keeping Jewish customs (laws or mitzvot) Obviously it is a perennial question of ritual/dead works versus piety and obedience in the small things. As far as I can tell, man needs religion, but what he needs more is the Holy Spirit, a new heart filled with new wine. This problem exists in the Catholic and Orthodox world in a particular way that is like the Jewish dilemma. It’s like being caught between two revelations if one remains in the mind. But Christ has come to open our hearts not to new or more liberated, or newly interpreted doctrine, He has come to open our hearts to His Love, His Holy Spirit, to a Sonship not based on things of this world.

    What can one say? Sometimes words and arguments fail. Perhaps the lesson to learn from history is not to split hairs over what is legitimate in the eyes of God according to this or that theology, but how do we love God as individuals, and if so blessed, as communities that He Himself calls together by His voice. How do we then love one another without having to convince others of our theology or ecclesiology. Of course we all have convictions and of course there is objective truth (I am not a relativist). But let’s remember what is Truth. “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life” Let’s just become holy and let God do the rest. I know that doesn’t put an end to questions nor should there be.

    • @strannik – God may have fulfilled the religion of the Jews, but there is no Biblical indication that He somehow “undid” their chosenness. What this chosenness means in a post-Christic context is partly what we’re trying to figure out on this blog 🙂

  7. dr p says:

    @stranniK I don’t entirely buy your argument, but I’ll agree with you for the sake of discussion. The problem hasn’t gone away, though, as you’ve only addressed the part where “…there is neither Jew…” without facing up to the “..nor Greek” part. Nowhere in Scripture are Gentiles allowed to continue being Gentiles, but are called to be Christians – the tertium quid I mentioned above. A Jewish Christian in a church gets raised eyebrows and whispers of judaising when he maintains national/ethnic distinctives, whilst Gentile believers do as they please and call it Christian. Your thoughts?

    • strannik says:

      Excellent point dr p. I’m not even sure what I was arguing. I was speaking off the cuff knowing that I didn’t have any polished points to make. Thanks for listening though. I understand the question and point of the topic, again, just speaking off the cuff. Yes, there is neither Greek nor Jew….. I was in no way intending to defend the gentile church over and against the jewish church. I feel much more comfortable with getting back to a sense of being Israel (not equivalent to being Jewish). Christ and his Apostles are Israel. Obviously this reality did not occur in a vacuum. God’s work began with Israel of old and continues with Israel of today. The question remains (at least for me) “Where is Israel today?” If the Church is Israel and it is made up of gentiles and jews, does one take precedence over the other? Is one more chosen than the other? Does anyone remember the Local Church? Can’t Jerusalem be Jerusalem and Rome be Rome? Do we misunderstand unity of religion for unity of Spirit? And yes, I do believe that the gentile churches have gone astray from the Hebrew/Apostolic understanding of God in many areas through a “paganizing” rather than “judaizing” element. I am very concerned about this. So, if we are asking the question of what is the destiny of Israel according to the flesh even unto this day, I would ay first that I only know they seem not to believe. It is to be noted that they worship the same God as the Church (unless the church is so thoroughly paganized in places) and that the Jews pray for the Messiah to come. Devout and pious Jews are living according to ancient ( and now void) promises and covenants revealed by God. They are not grasping the fullness of faith in Messiah. Does that mean God does not honor them? By no means. But is the way they follow to be considered privileged? Not in the sense of revelation for sure (unless we are speaking of their position to the paganized church perhaps?). Israel is not to be found in the flesh but in Christ and His Apostles. Will the Israel of God please stand up? Again, this is a spiritual Israel, a fulfilled Israel and yet a fulfilled paganism too which incidentally will not be fulfilled without the revelation of the GOD of Israel (not the religion of Israel). Where does this leave modern Jewry pious or not? I don’t know. Are they operating under the old covenants? Perhaps, but so what? God’s Kingdom will be served by Israel when Israel accepts her Messiah and when the Church is purged of all that is not the God of Israel. Religion and flesh make no difference.

      • strannik says:

        So “chosenness” for “Israel of the flesh” would be dependent on the acceptance of the Messiah, bringing about a “life from the dead”. What is chosen about Israel that does not believe in her Messiah? Nothing, unless she believes. And what if she believes? Is Israel’s religion the chosen religion? Chosen religion is this “to care for the widow and the orphan”. Enough of idolizing cultic religion whether pagan or jewish. “The Father desires worshippers in spirit and truth”. There is much that Israel of the flesh serves to remind us of. It is God’s plan that they have not been removed from history so as to be a sign of contradiction to the world with her Messiah. She will not be a sign of contradiction without the church anymore than the church is a sign of contradiction without Israel.

      • dr p says:

        @strannik: points well taken, but as a Calvinist I assert the following: 1) Jews do not worship the true God, as they deny the Trinity; 2) one can’t operate under an obsolete covenant; 3) I don’t recall Christ having much nice to say about Pharisaical piety; 4) extra ecclesiam nulla salus; 5) pruned cultivated olive branches are still cultivated olive branches – arrogant gentiles beware; 6) “devout and pious Jews” are living in conscious rejection of Messiah and are under His wrath and curse; 7) there is neither neutrality towards nor ignorance of Christ in Judaism, but oppositional defiance; 8) Christians are the True Israel for having been grafted into Christ; 9) the duty of True Israel to Ethnic Israel is to bring them the Gospel so that they can be grafted back into the Tree – not to tell them that being Christian is statistically more likely to lead to salvation than staying in the Synagogue, so bet wisely.

      • Can’t help responding here.

        2) Can God’s covenant become obsolete – truly forgotten? What is the evidence that it has been made so?

        3) Some truth to that, but what about “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a]that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.” I’ve never known what to make of that.

        6) “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!”… don’t know about wrath and curse.

  8. dr p says:

    @Lea: you’re wrong on the Protestants being merely distant from the Nasty Orient; eg Cromwell readmitting the Jews to the UK; Dutch squelching of Stuyvesant’s antisemitic policies in New Amsterdam; Van Gogh’s and the Dutch Masters’ use of Jewish themes, etc. There really wasa different heart-attitude towards Jews, albeit imperfect.

    You’re also wrong about Protestantism being nonsacramental, and offer Formula of Concord and the Reformed confessions as proof of an high view of the sacraments in historic Protestant theology. Please don’t confuse us with anabaptists, fundies, pentecostals, and other heirs of the Radical Reformation.

    The dialogue that needs to happen regardless of who wants it is a loving presentation of Gospel Truth framed in respect, readiness to confess sin, and an understanding of Jews and Judaism – and no compromise.

    • OK, sorry to confuse you with fundies 🙂 But you can’t have sacramentality without apostolic succession, even if you think you have it, just like you can’t have Temple worship without a priest who is actually a Cohen.

      As for the examples you bring up – it’s not difficult to list as many examples of Catholic/Orthodox church and civil leadership that acted in support of the Jews. And I don’t think you can discount the history – not only are the Protestants removed from Nasty Orient, they are also removed from the Byzantine tradition, including the Byzantine experience of Jews as rivals.

  9. Yahnatan says:

    strannik asked: What does it mean that “It is impossible for a Jew to Judaize”?

    The Groom’s Family added: It is certainly possible for a Jew to Judaize, if Judaizing is understood (as I think it is in the strictest sense) as acting on the belief that following the Mosaic Law is necessary for salvation.

    Wikipedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia and near universal Christian parlance notwithstanding, in its original and most basic sense, judaize meant “to take on Jewish customs.” While I suppose it is possible for a Jew “to take on [more] Jewish customs,” all the examples we have of this term being used in antiquity refer to Gentiles, not Jews. Furthermore, as Jewish New Testament scholar Mark Nanos points out in his book The Irony of Galatians (and Reformed NT scholar Michael Bird affirms in this blog post on Pauline Myths), the Greek verb judaize is reflexive–it is something one can do to/for oneself, but not to another. The common parlance of using “Judaizers” to refer to a hypothetical party of Christian Jews advocating Mosaic Law for Gentiles is thus a mistaken interpretation.

    That said, I would be curious to know what is the earliest use of judaizer to apply non-discriminately to any Gentiles or Jews who advocate for some form of Torah observance.

  10. Yahnatan says:

    strannik asked: What does it mean that “It is impossible for a Jew to Judaize”?

    The Groom’s Family added: It is certainly possible for a Jew to Judaize, if Judaizing is understood (as I think it is in the strictest sense) as acting on the belief that following the Mosaic Law is necessary for salvation.

    Wikipedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia and near universal Christian parlance notwithstanding, in its original and most basic sense, judaize meant “to take on Jewish customs.” While I suppose it is possible for a Jew “to take on [more] Jewish customs,” all the examples we have of this term being used in antiquity refer to Gentiles, not Jews. Furthermore, as Jewish New Testament scholar Mark Nanos points out in his book The Irony of Galatians (and Reformed NT scholar Michael Bird affirms in this blog post on Pauline Myths), the Greek verb judaize is reflexive–it is something one can do to/for oneself, but not to another. The common parlance of using “Judaizers” to refer to a hypothetical party of Christian Jews advocating Mosaic Law for Gentiles is thus a mistaken interpretation.

    That said, I would be curious to know what is the earliest use of judaizer to apply non-discriminately to any Gentiles or Jews who advocate for some form of Torah observance.

  11. dr p says:

    @Yahnatan: word meaning is determined by usage, and so one discards “near univeresal Christian parlance” at one’s peril. The earliest use in Galatians 2.14 applies both to the Jewish Christians introducing the concept as well as its gentile advocates, but it is less the customs introduced than the doctrinal ramifications of works-righteousness that is at the core of the dispute in Scripture, hence Lutheran and Reformed usage of the term to include Catholics of all stripes (no offence intended here – just clarifying usage). THus the Ebionites were Judaisers whilst the Nazarenes weren’t, although both were Jews practising Jewish customs.

    • Yahnatan says:

      dr p wrote: “the earliest use in Galatians 2.14 applies both to the Jewish Christians.”

      dr p, I’m afraid you’ve missed Nanos’s point: in Galatians 2.14, the verb judaize is applied to Gentiles, not to Jews. The same goes for all other usages of the term in antiquity. Thus, for Paul and the other apostles, to judaize meant to become Jewish–something which by definition is only possible for someone who is not Jewish.

  12. dr p says:

    @Yahnatan: not having read Nanos, I can’t comment on whether or not I missed his point; however, whilst the direct reference is to Gentiles, the context means much more than merely adopting Jewish customs: one can’t become national Israel (it’s a genetic thing…), and circumcision is not a custom in the same sense that playing dreydl at Hanukkah is, but rather is a covenant obligation. Customs qua customs are adiaphoric. Thus, to “become Jewish” must mean to adopt Old Covenant practises as necessary for salvation. The context is clear, hence the “near universal Christian parlance” you brought up earlier.

  13. dr p says:

    @Dorn: an hearty amen to you, sir!
    @Lea: dear friend, wrong again: 1) confessionalism has apostolic succession in that it maintains the clear teaching of Scripture, which is apostolic (vs a mere game of tag); 2) yes, you will find brief paroxysms of philosemitism in RC and EO lands, but notbhing on the scale of Protestant (particularly Reformed) regions (eg USA); 3) do recall that much of the opposition Cromwell faced to Jewish return had to do with economics, so the non-rivalry thesis fails; 4) God’s wrath and curse is upon all reprobates irrespective of nationality – it’s the consequence of man’s covenant infidelity. Israel, having been in covenant, is thus chastised more severely. However, this does niot mean tha tNational Israel has been discarded – if it did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation!

    • Well yes, if you define apostolic succession to mean whatever you want it to mean, then of course it means that 🙂
      Economic and religious rivalry is not the same thing. The issue with the Byzantines was rivalry for converts. But frankly, maybe we shouldn’t argue about this – the more people don’t hate the Jews, the better.

      • dr p says:

        I guess we’ll have to disagree on apostolic succession implying mere sequence of tucheses warming cathedral cushion sans any reference to objective apostolic record. I’m afraid that rivalry is rivalry is rivalry, and the Byzantines were kingdom-confusers who blurred the distinction between the keys and the sword; then again, whatever solid object one can hit Jews with is good enough for some, so who cares about distinctions?

  14. dr p says:

    PS: funny how plundered Jewish wealth and extortional taxes managed to find its way into Byzantine royal coffers, so perhaps fear of converts was merely a convenient excuse? Just a thought.

  15. Doron says:

    Judaism 101: The Man of Nazareth is the God of Israel.

  16. Pingback: No More Baptisms! | The Groom's Family

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s