Counter missionaries are individuals or groups which attempt to prove Yeshua is NOT the promised Messiah of Israel and/or promote doctrines that severely reduce his accomplishments. Anti-Paulists are those that consider Paul (Sha'ul or Saul) to be a false apostle and the original "inventor"of Christianity.
The following text was taken from the "Crash Course in Jewish History," which is offered from Aish.com. I highly advise everyone to consider obtaining the course material. It presents an excellent (though sometimes biased) overview of religious history. Oddly, THE best religious history available is also Jewish history, since all history relevant to Biblical thought revolves around the Jewish people. This should not come as a surprise, since the Bible itself centers around "Israel."
Though I fully agree with much that is presented in the article and all other "Crash Course ..." articles, and have found it to be corroborated by other historic sources, I still strongly disagree with certain areas of obvious, overt bias found within the material. This bias is most noticeable with regard to the counter missionary slant and anti-Paul bias that is easily recognized within the text.
Where I differ with the author, I have placed my comments in bold, blue letters enclosed in brackets [like this].
The Jesus sect in Jerusalem remained small and was simply not spreading among the Jews. Indeed, it had become offensive in Jewish eyes and the Jesus followers were considered heretics.
[This is a one-sided observation. I have seen historic accounts that estimate as many as 20 percent of Jews in Israel at the time were "Messianic" followers of Yeshua. Even if this is not correct, history suggests the impact of the followers of Yeshua the Messiah upon Judaic thought of the first century is not as small as this author infers. The common argument within Judaic circles that the Messianic movement was tiny and inconsequential is simply biased. It is also implicitly refuted by the instituted curse against Messianic Jews that was added to the Jewish daily prayers by the Pharisaic rabbis in the councils of Yavneh in the latter first century. The Siddur I once owned, which was destroyed in a fire, admitted to the curse being added to drive Messianics out of the synagogue. Why would the rabbis go to the trouble of adding an entirely new curse against Yeshua’s followers if their numbers were so tiny? If they were such a tiny minority the rabbis wouldn’t have wasted their time with them. So, modifications made to the daily prayers by the rabbis prove this author to be wrong. Only a significant "threat" by followers of Yeshua would cause them to institute their rabbinic curse; therefore, his statement of "The Jesus sect in Jerusalem remained small and was simply not spreading among the Jews." is not completely accurate and represents one of many efforts within Rabbinic Judaism to falsely represent the impact of the early Messianic faith.
Despite their age-old differences, leaders of Rabbinic Judaism and leaders of Constantinian Christianity unite in one thing, their determined opposition to the TRUE Messianic faith and their desire to eradicate it from the face of the earth. If the movement was so trivial, why has it existed and even grown, for almost 2000 years? Why do those like us still promote it? When did it die away? IT DIDN’T, and we are firm evidence of that fact!
There were numerous Judaic sects during the first century, and the Messianic sect believing Yeshua to be Messiah was possibly one of the largest. Their were NOT that many Pharisees, whose numbers are estimated to have been around 6000. Therefore, in reality, there were MORE Messianic followers of Yeshua than there were Pharisees! It should, thus, be no surprise that the "card carrying" members of the Pharisaic sect felt very threatened by the growing numbers of Messianic Jews.
So, this allegedly "small" Messianic sect the author speaks of (which was actually so large it threatened the Pharisaic sect) that he states "was simply not spreading among the Jews," has indeed spread, but not simply among the Jews. It has spread all over the world and is accelerating in these last days, to the chagrin of the leaders of Rabbinic Judaism, Constantinian Christianity, and counterfeit Messianic/Nazarene Judaism.]
The attitude of the rabbis was that these people, Jews though they may be, are pursuing an ideology that is off the Jewish path and their skewed beliefs are going to pollute the Jewish people. This is a splinter sect that has no place in Judaism; therefore, we've got to drive them out.
[Here you see an unintentional admission of truth. The "rabbis" felt the Messianic sect (followers of Yeshua) was going to "pollute" the Jewish people. The truth is that Yeshua’s followers conflicted with the rabbis' efforts to invent Rabbinic Judaism; therefore, the rabbis undertook measures to "drive them out" of the synagogue. The then leaders of Pharisaic Judaism did not like the impending threat to their "rabbinic authority." Thus, they enacted measures to squash the threat then and there. They labeled Yeshua's followers "heretics," just as the author said in the previous paragraph, "... the Jesus followers were considered heretics." The "curse" added to the daily prayers by the rabbinic leaders attending the Yavneh meetings was a primary means of accomplishing this.
In the religious battle between the followers of Yeshua and Rabbinic Judaism, the rabbis drew first blood when they drove the true Messianics from their synagogues, a move equivalent to Christianity's excommunicating and "condemning to hell" those that do not adhere to established dogmas.]
One of those who took the driving-out part seriously was a Jew named Saul, originating from Tarsus (a city in Asia Minor, today's Turkey).
But, as he later wrote in his "epistles" or "letters," after participating in persecutions of the Jesus sect, Saul had a sudden change of heart. He wrote that Jesus appeared to him in a vision and dissuaded him from persecuting his followers.
Following this mystical encounter, Saul disappeared from the scene to re-emerge some 13 years later (circa 47-60 CE) as Paul, a missionary to the gentiles.
When he re-emerged on the world scene, Paul introduced some revolutionary ideas, which at first caused some furor among the more seasoned Jesus followers. During a dramatic meeting with the Jesus sect in Jerusalem, his viewpoint won: the new religion would separate from Judaism.
[WRONG! The "new" religion, as he calls it, would actually separate from the newly created RABBINIC Judaism, whose forefathers were many of the Pharisees of Paul’s day. There was (and is) NO separation from the TRUE Hebraic faith. You will also note in the previous paragraph a subtle slander of Paul. Usually it is not so subtle.
What I am referring to is the implicit accusation that during the 13 years of Paul’s silence he was adopting pagan unscriptural ideas and preparing himself to go out and proclaim them. Usually this fanciful accusation is explicitly made by anti-Paulists. It is a common accusation in counter missionary literature. With no verifiable factual evidence whatsoever, counter missionaries openly slander Paul and make other shameless accusations as part of their efforts to present Paul as an apostle of falsehood. Anyone familiar with me knows that I am personally disgusted with the biased misrepresentation of facts, unfounded assumptions, and subtle deceit practiced by counter missionaries. They absolutely repulse me – a fact I do not hide or apologize for. I will not apologize for opposing blatant slander, deception, and misinformation (lies).
Think about it. … Paul was shocked to his knees (literally) with a Messianic revelation of Yeshua. Paul, unlike many today, would not let this revelation instantly change his beliefs. Instead, Paul likely undertook intense study to prove FROM THE TANAKH that the revelation was authentic. Paul knew that truth MUST be evidenced from the Tanakh and NOT from suspected revelation or "spiritually revealed" truth. He couldn’t order material from Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble. He did not have the internet available or massive Scriptural software study programs he could use to hasten his study. There were few with whom he could consult to advance his understanding. All he had to rely upon was the Tanakh. Of course, there were no Christian references at all! In other words, the only thing Paul had were hand made scrolls of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and, possibly, rabbinic thought from his days as a student of rabbi Gamaliel I, who was one of the most notable Sages in all of Judaic history – the son of Hillel and father of Gamaliel II, a leader in the Yavneh councils. Since Paul was not one to allow the emotional ecstasy and an arrogant elitist view of "spirit guidance" to determine his ultimate beliefs, he would have undertaken a VERY intense study that would likely have taken years and years of effort. If this view is correct, 13 years would not be an excessive span of time for a deeply religious man to search for firm Scriptural support of the revelation he witnessed.
Also, why is it that anti-Paulists do not consider that perhaps Paul was with friends or family during those intervening years? He may have even been ill. Of course, Paul also knew about the rise in persecution in Jerusalem, since he had actively taken part in it; therefore, he may have chosen to stay away a while to let the situation settle down. Why do anti-Paulists ALWAYS jump to the conclusion that Paul was working mischief and creating apostate teachings? There are innumerable legitimate reasons why Paul would wait 13 or so years before going to Jerusalem to meet the leaders of the fledgling Messianic faith, few of which imply mischief. One must be paranoid, biased against Paul, or a slanderous gossip to force the view Paul's delay had wicked intent; yet, that is precisely what anti-Paulists think. So what does that suggests about them?
I am of the opinion that study and personal priorities of which we cannot possibly know are precisely what kept Paul from Jerusalem during those intervening years between the revelation on the road to Damascus and his "coming out" of seclusion. In fact, the time between the revelation and his ministry actually REFUTES the notion he was a false apostle. Why would he wait 13 years to begin promoting "falsehood" if his intent was to oppose truth? In short, the 13 years of silence do NOT support the notion he was "contriving evil" in Damascus as anti-Paulists slanderously imply. On the contrary, it REFUTES such a notion!
I have elaborated somewhat on the accusation that Paul was inventing an apostate religion during the time between the revelation on the road to Damascus and his return to Jerusalem because it reveals a primary tactic of those that consider Paul a false apostle. Paul's accusers PLANT SEEDS OF SUSPICION then proceed to present those unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS as though they are FACTS. They do it with such subtlety and guile that many are blindly lead, almost as though in a drunken stupor, to consider the slanderous assumptions to be true! It is a particularly vile means by which anti-Paulists spread their devilish counter missionary garbage. It is also a standard tactic used for almost ALL counter missionary arguments and reveals the true spirit guiding counter missionaries to those with the wisdom to discern their cunning trickery.
I will not indulge in the fruitful possibilities that abound for responding to the author's subtle slap at Paul when he states that Paul had a "mystical encounter." For a Judaic believer to dare criticize anyone for "mysticism" is the epitome of hypocrisy. Ever heard of "Kabbalah?" I prefer to call it Ka-blah-blah. It is Scripturally unsubstantiated pseudo-occult Jewish mysticism and is filled with ludicrous mind-altering speculations that no other spiritual excesses on earth can surpass. Therefore, Judaic counter missionaries need to just shut up and sit down whenever they feel the wicked urge to EVER criticize Paul or anyone else for indulging in mystical behavior, since they gorge themselves on it as a foundational aspect of their Judaic faith! ]
Paul went off on a series of missionizing journeys in which he was highly successful in attracting converts to the new religion -- Christianity.
[WRONG AGAIN! "Christianity" did not exist! Paul’s writings do NOT support the doctrines of Constantinian Christianity!]
Paul preached monotheism to be sure, but with one radical innovation. The way of salvation for Gentiles was now much simpler: belief in Jesus replaced observance of the commandments.
[Ok, here we go again. WRONG! Paul did NOT promote "belief in Jesus replaced observance of the commandments." Paul strongly endorsed and promoted Torah; however, he did NOT promote Rabbinic Judaism’s concept of Torah, which is actually a mixture of manmade traditions and Torah – a PEVERSION of true Torah.
Why is it that counter missionaries ignore the many PRO-torah comments from Paul? Why is it they explicitly promote the notion that Paul is the creator of Constantinian Xtianity even though Paul’s letters REFUTE the errors found in Xtianty. Why is it counter missionaries read Paul’s letters from a biased perspective and distort them as Peter warned about in 2 Peter 3:15,16?
The author correctly points out that Paul was a monotheist "to be sure;" therefore, he contradicts himself by insinuating Paul promoted falsehood even as he admits that Paul did NOT promote the pagan Trinity upon which Constantinian Xtianity is based! According to this author’s correct observation regarding Paul’s monotheism, Paul would today be condemned to "hell" as a heretic by the very religion (Xtianity) counter missionaries claim he started! ??
Through Paul's efforts, and the zeal of his early disciples, Christianity experienced a meteoric rise in popularity. Its initial successes were all in places where the non-Jewish inhabitants had had significant exposure to Jewish ideas.
We had previously talked about the tension in the Greco-Roman world that pitted Hellenism against Judaism. But we neglected to mention that there were Romans who were very much attracted to Judaism.
This was especially true in the 1st century CE when, under Nero, the decay of Rome began and thoughtful, intelligent people saw the empire turning into a cesspool of decadence, violence, and overall immorality. Such people were looking for stability, for a universal moral view of the world, and they were casting their eye on some more exotic forms of worship than the official state religion.
Their search brought to Rome many alien religious cults -- in particular the worship of Mithra, the Persian god of light and wisdom, who became identified with Helios, the Greek sun god, as well as Sol, the Roman sun god. This cult came to be so popular that the Romans named a day of the week - "Sunday" - in honor of Mithra, and celebrated the sun god's birthday in late December in conjunction with the Winter Solstice.
Loyalty to the state gods was further weakened by the Roman policy of stealing the gods of conquered peoples. The "captured gods" were then "owned" by Rome and incorporated into the official pantheon. As the empire grew, the number of gods multiplied wildly. According to the Roman writer Varro, at one point, Rome had in excess of 30,000 gods and 157 holidays a year. Who could keep them straight, or, for that matter, take them seriously?
Another important factor was the constant threat of internal rebellion and external invasion with which they lived. The feeling that merciless fate and a cruel death lurked around the corner made one anxious and fearful. (Perhaps all those hours of watching minor criminals butchered at the Coliseum created a subconscious of "there but for the grace of one of the 30,000 gods go I.")
The atmosphere of impending doom was only heightened by all of the murderous intrigue in politics, by the general corruption, and by the apparent state of moral decline. People gorged themselves on delicacies, then vomited so they could consume even more food. Meanwhile, at the public baths, endless sex orgies with slaves and prostitutes were the way to spend the night.
Historian Michael Grant, in The World of Rome (p. 129), sums it up as follows:
"The Roman age was a time of not only uncontrolled blood lust but pessimism and nerve-failure regarding the powers of man to work his own future. The existence and propaganda of the imperial government claiming support of the old gods did not remove the deep-seated feeling that every man was adrift, and everything hazardous. So the presiding deity of nerve-failure was Fortune. 'Throughout the whole world,' says Pliny the Elder, 'at every place and hour, by every voice, Fortune alone is invoked and her name spoken ... We are so much at the mercy of chance that chance is our god.'"
In such an atmosphere, the Jewish view that one is not lost at sea in a random and hostile universe, but is looked after by a one, omnipotent and loving God, who orders and runs the world, was likely to get a receptive hearing.
However, conversion to Judaism has always been a major undertaking, one which has historically required the prospective convert to demonstrate his or her sincere desire to follow the Torah's teachings.
Nevertheless, Roman historical records show us that Judaism did catch on, especially in major cultural centers such as Rome and Alexandria. The best-known exporter of hybrid Jewish ideology was Philo Judeas, who lived and taught between 20 BCE to 50 CE. Strongly influenced by Hellenism, he sought to fuse Greek philosophy with Judaism and to export this mixture to the world. Philo was a prolific writer with a considerable following.
Among those who converted at this time was Onkelos, reportedly Nero's nephew, who subsequently translated the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. And historians say Pompeia, Nero's wife, also converted to Judaism, and that Marcus Aurelius seriously considered it.
It cannot be denied that the message and lifestyle of Judaism was very attractive to many Romans. Historian Howard Sachar, in his History of Israel, p. 111, suggests an explanation for why this was so:
"The conditions were highly favorable. The old paganism ... was decaying, and sensitive minds were repelled by it. The clear-cut monotheism and the rational practices of the Hebrews, expounded with charm by the Hellenized Jewish writers, made a deep impression. There were great numbers of converts, if not officially to Judaism, at least to Jewish practices and ideals."
This is not to imply that, just because some citizens of the empire converted and many more openly sympathized with the Jews, that the religion of Moses was taking Rome by storm. The reason why was not simple: Jewish laws, restrictions and rituals seemed difficult to follow. While certain commandments such as Sabbath rest and dietary laws were very popular and relatively easy to observe, other rituals of Judaism were seen as too extreme and too difficult -- for example circumcision and sexual abstinence during a part of each month.
Additionally, many saw Judaism as a national religion of a specific people -- that is, being Jewish meant not only ascribing to a religious faith, but also adopting a different national identity. Naturally, if you were born in Rome, you surely did not want to appear to be giving up your Roman citizenship. It didn't help matters that Judea was one of the most rebellious and troublesome provinces in the empire, and Jews in general were often viewed with suspicion and hostility. This no doubt caused many Romans to think twice about joining Jewish ranks.
This is where Paul stepped in.
Paul's shrewdness was to retain the most appealing parts of Judaism and the close connection to the Bible, while dropping the "objectionable" components.
Paul preached that belief in Jesus replaced the laws of the Torah -- that is, all the commandments that the Romans who were attracted to Judaism found so cumbersome.
[WRONG YET AGAIN! Paul did NOT preach "belief in Jesus replaced the laws of the Torah." I’ve already covered this and continue to be disgusted by this blatantly ignorant or wickedly conceived false judgment of Paul’s teachings.
OK. This is the last time I will point out the obvious anti-Paul bias held by this author. You will encounter such bias repeatedly throughout his article as well as all other counter missionary material. Just keep in mind what I’ve already mentioned. It is like I said earlier, using the tactic of "misinformation swarming," counter missionaries and anti-Paulists eventually cause those like myself to tire of the endless, time consuming task of exposing their continual errors. It is not worth the effort. Let them be, in the end their deceit will be exposed by the ONE whose job it is to judge.]
By converting to Christianity, a Roman was able to subscribe to the Jewish view of one loving God, as well as to the Torah's moral vision of peace, justice, and love of one's neighbor. A Roman could subscribe to these ideas without having to become "different" in the way Jews were "different."
Thus Paul removed the barriers and opened the floodgates.
Writes John G. Gager in Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (p. 140):
" ...Christianity preserved all the advantages of its Jewish heritage but without the only two factors that might otherwise have inhibited its growth: the obligation of the ritual law and the close connection between religion and national identity. By proclaiming that the Christ was 'the end of the law' and by presenting itself to the world as 'the new spiritual Israel,' Hellenistic Christianity was able to reap the political and social fruits that had been sown by three centuries of Hellenistic Judaism."
[It is a well know fact that the passage in Romans (Ro. 10:4) most often translated as "end of the law," is actually "goal of the law." Messiah is the GOAL of Torah. The Greek word "telos" does NOT mean "end" as in "termination." It means "end" as in goal or ultimate objective. Messiah is the goal and example of all that Torah teaches as well as the one anointed to fulfill the Messianic hope proclaimed in Scripture. I am fairly sure this author is well aware of this translation error but chose to avoid mentioning it due to his fervent dislike of Paul.]
Needless to say, observant Jews objected to Paul, a Jew whom they saw as the worst kind of heretic. Indeed, because of Jewish complaints against him, Paul was arrested by the Roman authorities, held for a time under house arrest, and finally executed in or around 67 CE (the year of the start of the Great Revolt against Rome in Israel.)
[More misinformation. It was the particularly legalistic "observant Jews" that objected to Paul and made accusation against him – Jews that held to an ultra-strict and intolerant Pharisaic brand of Judaism from which Rabbinic Judaism sprang years later. Those that read the book of Acts, to which he refers, see clearly that the accusations against Paul were FALSE and that when Paul was finally able to defend himself his actual accusers could not prove their claims! If Paul was actually guilty of being anti-Torah, why did he fervently DENY such false accusations? If it were true, he would have embraced the chance to admit it and promote it instead of passionately denying it! Hello? Please apply some common sense.
Also, if this author wishes to use the book of Acts to support his argument, why does he avoid mentioning the plot by Paul’s accusers to kill him? Why also does he fail to mention the many pro-Torah passages in Acts? Why does he fail to mention that most of the final chapters in Acts show Paul as a staunch advocate of Torah, falsely accused of promoting anti-Torah teachings and strongly refuting such claims?
Christian tradition has it that Paul and the chief apostle of Jesus, Peter, were buried on Vatican Hill, the current seat of the Roman Catholic Church.
After the death of Paul, Christianity continued to evolve and grow. Many controversies arose as the new religion struggled to develop its core theology.
[NOTE: AFTER the death of Paul ... During Paul's ministry the grotesque errors of Christianity would NOT have escaped his fervent rebuke, just as it does not escape ours! We, unlike Christians, counter missionaries, and anti-Paulists, recognize Paul's teachings for what they really are]
As this is a Crash Course in Jewish History and not a treatise on Christianity, we are not going to get involved in the discussing the development of the Christian dogmas of the Trinity, virgin birth, resurrection, etc., nor of the various "heresies" which flourished in early Christian Church. For those interested in the subject, the premier work is by Christian historian Paul Johnson, titled History of Christianity.
Suffice it to say that it took some 300 years for the early Christian Church to get down its core dogma, which turned out to be a synthesis of Jewish ideas, Greek ideas and other pagan ideas. With the growth of Christianity came stiff resistance from official Rome -- the new religion was catching on too well and threatening the state religion and therefore stability of the state. Christianity was outlawed in Rome and those who were caught practicing it were regularly crucified or fed to the lions in the Coliseum.
[Here we have another unintentional proof that Paul was NOT a false apostle. The author correctly points out "... it took some 300 years for the early Christian Church to get down its core dogma ..." OVER 200 YEARS AFTER PAUL the false Christian dogmas were NOT yet in place. Well now ... if Paul allegedly so clearly taught false doctrine, why - after 200+ years - are the Xtian doctrines still not yet established? Hmmm? Here the author unintentionally clears Paul of the very charges he hurls against him! ]
These persecutions which came in waves (depending on the tolerance level of the Roman Emperor in power) actually served to make Christianity stronger. In this regard, the Christians were following the precedent-setting behavior of the Jews in the days of the Greek Empire. (Back then, no one died for their religion -- no one, except the Jews. See Part 28.)
And then, suddenly, in 312 CE, a remarkable thing happened which dramatically changed Christian fortune and led, within a dozen years, to the elevation of Christianity to the state religion of the Roman Empire. The remarkable thing was the conversion of Constantine, who would become the Emperor of Rome.
On the eve of a battle with his rival for the throne of Rome, Constantine reported that he had a dream of Jesus followed by a vision of a cross superimposed on the sun.
Constantine was prone to visions, having a couple years earlier claimed seeing the sun god Sol in a grove of Apollo in Gaul. The juxtaposition of the two -- cross and sun -- was an omen for victory and, when Constantine won the battle, he gave the credit to his new-found god and converted to Christianity.
Oxford scholar David L. Edwards, Provost of London's Southwark Cathedral and author of Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years, openly doubts the sincerity of Constantine's conversion as do other Christian scholars.
But such are the quirks of history. Soon Constantine was emperor and he chose to establish his capital in the east, in Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople.
Eventually, the empire would split into two - the Western empire would collapse in the 5th century, but the Eastern empire would survive another thousand years.) Thus, Christianity became the official state religion of the new order - the Byzantine Empire.
Constantine had initiated a unique way of seeing Christianity - by a merging of pagan and Christian symbols (sun and cross). Over the next few hundred years much more such synthesis followed.
Though Christians like to see Christianity as "the religion of love" and Judaism as "the religion of law," looking at Constantine's record, a Jew might well ask: "What's love got to do with it?"
Writes Johnson in History of Christianity (p. 68):
"He [Constantine] had no respect for human life, and as emperor he executed his eldest son, his own second wife, his favorite sister's husband and 'many others' on doubtful charges ... He was much criticized for condemning prisoners of war to mortal combat with wild beasts at Trier and Comar and for wholesale massacres in north Africa."
It didn't help that there was soon unleashed a bitter struggle for wealth and power that was bound to come with being the only act in town.
With the aim of eradicating paganism, Christian mobs scoured the land of the empire smashing idols and burning temples. Writes Johnson (p. 76):
" ...it [the Church] transformed itself from a suffering and victimized body, begging toleration, into a coercive one, demanding monopoly..."
Cynics have charged that once it became a state power, the Christian Church turned the cross into a sword, and its ability to convert the Western world had less to do with its message than its methods. By the late 4th century CE the official government efforts at intimidation through laws and decrees - aided by mob terrorism - succeeded in imposing Christianity on the majority of the empire.
With the disappearance of paganism, Judaism began to stick out like a sore thumb. As always, it was strange and separate, and it wouldn't compromise. The stubborn Jews, as they had done with every other religion that had assaulted their belief system previously, were obstinately refusing to bow to the new order.
This presented a special problem, as William Nicholls explains in Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (p. 90):
" ...the very presence of the Jewish people in the world, continuing to believe in the faithfulness of God to the original covenant ... puts a great question against Christian belief in a new covenant made through Christ. The presence of this question, often buried deep in the Christian mind, could not fail to cause profound and gnawing anxiety. Anxiety usually leads to hostility."
Within a short time, Jews living in the Empire had lost most of their civil rights. (For example, for a Jew to marry a Christian was an offense punishable by death.) The Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, was forbidden to meet, and sermons against the Jews, often inciting violence, were routinely preached. The idea of presenting Jews as the killers of Jesus originated at this time, though it was not popularized until several hundred years later.
By the early 7th century when the Byzantine might began to wobble - facing attacks from the Persians who swallowed up chunks of the territory and even took Jerusalem - the Jews living in the empire were in a very precarious position. Anti-Jewish legislation, heavy taxes and outbreaks of violence and forced conversions, all had taken their toll on the population. Hoping to find a respite from the Christians, some fled back home to safety. But when the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius reclaimed Jerusalem in 629 CE, the poor Jews who found themselves there were brutally massacred.
Praying for relief, these Jews no doubt could never have dreamed that relief would come in the form of a "mixed blessing" from a most unexpected place - from Saudi Arabia. There in Mecca -- a place that had long been the center of pagan worship at the famed Black Stone of Kaaba -- an unusual man named Mohammed was preaching an unusual message.