View Single Post
  #72  
Old Mar 5, '12, 1:12 pm
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

"Yanni" writes,

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
As for your question related to Mr. Sungenis, are you really taking the “But he’s doing something worse!” defense? We’re focusing on your problematic essays, Mr. Palm. You are the one taking theological positions and claiming they are Magisterial and taught by the Church, and we are exploring the correctness of your representations. I have seen nothing but charitable discussion from Mr.Sungenis. Please stay on topic.
"Please stay on topic." Okay, as both you and Bob seem to be suffering from the same mark-ed amnesia, let's refresh your memory about the actual topic of this thread, as opposed to what you and Bob want it to be about, "Yanni".

What was the actual topic of this thread? "Was Jesus Also the Messiah for the Jews". Hoxbar wanted to know if "Jesus was sent for the Gentiles and not for the Jews...us Gentiles needed a messiah not the Jews." 18 comments followed, both for and against this serious error—this heresy.

And, of course, considering the fact that you and your friend Bob Sungenis consider this to be one of the most nefarious heresies the Church has faced, you jumped in immediately to oppose and denounce it, right?

Nah. Instead, you only jumped in after a CAF member legitimately cited our Lay Witness article to combat that heresy. And then what? You ignored the plain heresy right in front of your face—that Jesus was not the Messiah for the Jews—and instead only felt compelled to come out of the woodwork in order to warn people about how dangerous our article supposedly is, even though we’re both on the same side, in opposition to that heresy. Interesting priorities, don’t you think? And you completely misrepresented what we wrote in the process. As such, your admonition to “stay on topic” seems more than a little ironic and self-serving, don’t you think,“Yanni”?

And speaking of “ironic” and “self-serving”, you said that I am “the one taking theological positions and claiming they are Magisterial and taught by the Church.” Well, yes. And we’ve given more than ample evidence that we’re correct and you and your friend Bob are wrong. Conversely, neither you nor Bob have brought forward any magisterial evidence that you're right and we’re wrong. And remember, we’re not out and about branding anyone a heretic for simply disagreeing with our understanding of the evidence. That's what your friend Bob Sungenis is doing to Bishop Rhoades and us. And after being repeatedly challenged to support those charges from magisterial teaching?

Crickets.

Instead, we get more of Bob’s personal Scripture interpretations.

Continuing yet further on the "ironic" and “self-serving” theme, you also chided me for supposedly “taking the ‘But he’s doing something worse!’ defense.” But what did I ask you and why, “Yanni”? I pointed out that you seemed extremely concerned with our balance on these issues involving Jews. So I simply questioned whether your concerns themselves were balanced. I asked if you were concerned at all with the fact that Bob is currently promoting the work of David Duke - former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan; has publicly spread a lie about Jewish convert Roy Schoeman (and knows it is a lie, yet he refuses to retract and apologize for it--see here); has repeatedly slandered Bishop Rhoades; has made the kind of offensive and erroneous statements listed here; and right now has an entire website that appears to be a clearing house for Jewish conspiracy theories. I asked you if this represented the kind of balanced approach you think is an effective way to reach the Jewish people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And your response?

Crickets again.

That’s telling, “Yanni”. I can think of very few people who wouldn’t willingly distance themselves from this sort of outrageous behavior.