View Single Post
  #94  
Old Mar 8, '12, 7:38 am
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?

Now, to deal with a few of Bob's final criticisms before moving on:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
There he goes again…Not only are we to give unsaved and anti-Christian Jews some kind of “special relationship” with God, but the Church is “inherently Jewish”!
No, Bob. We don’t “give” Jews a special relationship with God. God gave it to them. The Church has simply acknowledged the relationship and so should we. But there’s no cause for sibling jealousy.

And of course the Church is inherently Jewish, Bob. You’re flirting with multiple heresies by denying that fact. Are you a Docetist? Jesus Christ is both true God and true man. That "true man" is a Jewish man. The head of your Church, which is His Body, was, is and forever will be a Jew. Do you deny the Real Presence? Whose Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity do you receive at Holy Communion, Bob? That of the Jewish God-man, the King of Israel, right? Who is our Mediatrix of all graces, Bob and our spiritual Mother? Miriam, the Jewess. Who will sit in judgment with the Jewish God-man? Twelve Jews, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Who wrote your Bible, Bob? All Jews (with only one exception). Who are the "natural branches" of the Olive Tree, compared to those who are grafted in "contrary to nature"? Do you see how inherently Jewish the Church is now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
Sure. I expose the error of the US Catechism; the bishops vote 243 to 14 to remove the error; the Vatican confirms the change, yet Mr. Palm claims I’m “not reflecting what the Magisterium teaches.”
Bob, I know for a fact that others recognized the problem before you did. And they continued to stay in communication with the USCCB about it without making a spectacle of themselves. The problem is not that you oppose the dual covenant heresy. Nobody in the apologetics community has ever criticized you for that and you will never be able to show a shred of evidence to the contrary, because we all (including Bishop Rhoades) agree with you that the dual covenant theory is a heresy. The problem is with the rest of what you teach, things that make you a crude supersessionist (to use Cardinal Dulles' words)—like teaching that “the Jews are godless”, that they “have infected our Catholic Church”, that they won’t ever be restored as a people alongside us Gentiles, that there is no further unique role for them in salvation history unless it is at the service of Satan. All accented with a continuous stream of anti-Jewish propaganda gleaned from white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Holocaust deniers. You know, those kinds of things. Those have been and continue to be the problem, Bob.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
If [David Duke] is a racist, I'm not condoning it. You don't see anything on my website that does so. What you see is Duke's information on Jewish gangsters and bankers and Zionist hegemony. Besides, what's worse? David Duke's alleged white racism or your blatant Jewish racism?
David Duke is only an “alleged” racist? That’s pretty much what you said about National Vanguard—the white supremacist group that you've used as a source of material on Jews.

I continue to find it remarkable that you don’t seem to think that David Duke's prior leadership of one the world’s most notorious racist (and anti-Semitic) groups and his continuing racist views have any bearing on his ability to speak credibly on Jewish issues. But your mere suspicion that we have Jewish ancestry has a huge bearing on our ability to speak credibly on Jewish issues in your mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sungenis View Post
R. Sungenis: It's a canard, Mr. Palm, because you know very well I gave a conditional apology to Mr. Schoeman due to the fact that I received information about a derogatory statement he allegedly made. I also stated I would give him an unconditional apology if he would assure me, through written statement signed by him, that he did not say the statement in question. To this day he has not done so, and you have not encouraged him to do so. The only thing you do is spread slander about me claiming that I'm "lying" about about the original statement Mr. Schoeman allegdegly said and that I still accuse him of saying it!!
Bob, please allow me refresh your memory. After the president of your board of directors (Mark Wyatt) discovered what Roy Schoeman had actually written, as opposed to what you falsely attributed to him, you wrote to the young man (Steve Tolles) who gave you the bogus quote of Schoeman and you told Tolles that you believed it was fraudulent. Not only that, but you sent him some bizarre, threatening emails. Yet, in public, you completely stuck by the quote and defended Tolles. Then you even publicly suggested that Roy Schoeman had changed the quote just to hide what he had said—basically calling him a liar. Only after sustained public pressure did you eventually send an email to Schoeman in which you said he had to get an affidavit swearing that he didn’t write the bogus quote and only then you would retract and apologize for it!

Do you really not understand why Roy never responded to that “apology”, Bob? You’ve also forgotten that Tolles wrote to Ben Douglass and told him straight out that the quote of Schoeman was bogus and how it happened. Tolles gave Douglass your strange and threatening emails. And your response? Complete silence.

It was a lie, Bob. You made very public and very false charges against Roy Schoeman. But you’ve allowed it to stand because of your animus against a Jewish convert. Now you’re upset when Roy is defended publicly. Again, the whole story is right here, written by your own former vice president in defense of Roy Schoeman: Origin of Schoeman Forgery Revealed
.