More Anti-Jewish Bigotry at BTF

In response to a Q and A at BTF entitled “What do you think of the pope’s speech on the Jews”, a BTF patron using the name “daaharper” made the following comments (question 121) and even invited Sungenis to remove his posts if Sungenis found them offensive.  His comments are the only ones currently published in response to Sungenis’s article.  Apparently, Sungenis finds nothing offensive in them.  For four weeks and counting now, Sungenis has published the following comments from his patron at BTF:

“Enough is enough.
At what point do we start calling a thing for what it is? Do words and actions actually mean anything anymore?
The Shoah has become the chief ontological event in the New World Order, and a potent political tool used to justify and facilitate all manner of political evil.”

 

“If Rome still had courage it would force the issue, many scholars are willing to support Bishop Williamson.”

 

“The Pope is teaching heresy, there is only one reading of Holy Scripture…Rabbinical Judaism…is satanic, or more precisely, 'The Synagogue of Satan'.” 

“Rightly, has Archbishop Theodosius of Sebaste told the Pope he is not welcome.”

“The term Anti-Semite has nothing to do with racism, if it did, the Jewish nation would be the most Anti-Semitic nation on earth.”

 

“Robert…anybody who supports Zionism – including the Pope – is evil.  Period.  If the Pope kowtows to Rabbinical Judaism, he is worshipping Satan.”

 

"Major Premise:  The Talmud is satanic

Minor Premise:  The Pope praises it 

Conclusion:  The Pope is praising Satanism."

After these extreme and offensive comments, Sungenis’s patron then returned to make another comment,  apologizing for being “so passionate” and to assure Sungenis that his diatribe was not directed at Sungenis himself but at “the Catholic World” - “particularly the hierarchy.” 

After somewhat equivocating on his charge of heresy against the Holy Father, Sungenis’s patron then offered this remarkable caveat:  “If somebody supported Nazism out of good will nowadays, we’d certainly think unfavorably of them.”  The idea of supporting Nazism out of good will certainly seems odd enough in an of itself.  But it is also telling that Sungenis's patron would merely  “think unfavorably” of someone who supported Nazism.

 

The next day, perhaps after realizing that he had revealed his thoughts a little too fully, Sungenis’s patron offered something akin to the “I have Jewish friends” defense…“I have known many fine Jewish people”.   He then went on to convey that he didn't really mean to slander all Jewish people.

And so, the pattern that we noted back in 2006 continues unabated:  “[Sungenis] continues to evidence a propensity to uncritically seek out and accept unsavory, dubious and/or negatively biased information in regard to Jews and has drawn others with similar proclivities to his website.”  (emphasis added, see: Sungenis and the Jews) 

Is Pope Benedict Guilty of a “perverse resurrection of Talmudic Judaism”?

…or is the Holy Father simply following the lead of St. Paul and Jesus?

In March, 2007, Bob Sungenis attacked Jewish convert, Roy Schoeman, for daring to use the Talmud in his book Salvation is from the Jews. For the sake of evangelizing fellow Jews, Schoeman had cited passages from the Talmud that clearly support the belief that Jesus was the Messiah of Israel.

Bob writes:

“Schoeman claims that we can look ‘to the Talmud to examine some of what it has to say about the Messiah’ (p. 111)…Schoeman’s appeal is nothing more than a perverse resurrection of Talmudic Judaism.” (Thirteen Problems with the Theology and Eschatology of Roy Schoeman, p. 2)

Then, later that same month, Bob further attacked Schoeman and Ben Douglass for defending Schoeman:

“The Talmud’s concept of a Messiah has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ, even by extraction. It doesn’t matter how close Schoeman makes the descriptions in the Talmud match Jesus Christ… Unfortunately, the young and impressionable Mr. Douglass is being sucked into all this erroneous thinking by his devotion to Mr. Schoeman.” (Catholics Falling for Jewish Errors, pp 49-50)

“Mr. Schoeman strains to show some positive prophecies because it is his express purpose to exonerate the Talmud as a Christian-accepted book when in fact it is a book of Christ-hating and Christianity-loathing Jewish scholars who hoped to see the Catholic Church destroyed. Unfortunately, Mr. Douglass, probably because of his pride in seeking to denigrate me, has allowed himself to fall for this bit of spiritual chicanery.” (Ibid, pp 49-50)

Incredibly, Bob is now defending Pope Benedict’s use of the Talmud, using arguments that almost precisely mirror those that Ben Douglass used to defend Roy Schoeman against Bob’s attacks:

“The pope is no more to be condemned for quoting the Talmud than St. Paul is for quoting a pagan Greek poet in Acts 17:28 to make his theological point to the Athenians gathered on Mars Hill…In no way can it be concluded that Paul was ‘rehabilitating an eternally condemned, anti-Christian text.’ Rather, he did what any good apologist would do -- use his opponents own arguments against himself. If it takes quoting from the opponent's true statements in his own literature, Paul will do so, for, as he says in 1 Cor 9, he becomes all things to all peoples so that he may win them to the Gospel.”

“Hence, when Pope Benedict said: ‘Does not the Talmud Yoma (85b) state: 'The Sabbath has been given to you, but you have not been given to the Sabbath?,’ he was using the same apologetic methodology as St. Paul. In fact, Pope Benedict is using the same apologetic that Jesus himself used when confronting the Pharisees. It is a classic case of using your opponent's strengths to defeat him. Granted, Jesus is not using the Talmud here, but the quote the pope cited from the Talmud is so close to what Jesus said of the Sabbath, that they are virtually the same.”

“Hence, the pope was quite correct in using the Talmud in his discussion with the Jews in France…If, in some sections of the Talmud, it can be shown that the statements therein agree with godly principles and Christian truth, it is certainly appropriate to quote them to the people who believe they are authoritative, for you show them that even their own authority agrees with you.”

“The Talmud itself, is an anti-Christian book…Christians have no basis elevating the Talmud as a divine book or even something authoritative. It is a Jewish book written for Jewish people and, in fact, in several places it repudiates Christ and Christianity. But this makes the quoting from the Talmud by the pope all the more note worthy, for if the Jews regard it as having any authority, then they must conclude that what the pope is saying about the Sabbath and its relation to Christianity must be true, for even the Talmud recognizes that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Once the Jews see this truth, then they might be able to appreciate all the other truths Christianity has to offer.”

(Pope Benedict’s Citing of the Talmud, pp 2-4)

(Ben Douglass' defenses of Roy Schoeman may be viewed here and here.)

Additionally, Douglass noted the following regarding Bob's unfair treatment of Schoeman:

Interestingly enough, Sungenis goes on to admit that Schoeman highlights some of the Talmud's blasphemies on pp. 132-134 of Salvation is from the Jews. Sungenis will later complain that, "There is hardly a negative word about the Talmud in Schoeman's book. Not once does he cite the very controversial passages in which the Talmud condemns Jesus Christ, Mary and Christianity." Yes he does, on pages 132-134. You already admitted it. (Article)

So, there you have it. If Jewish convert Roy Schoeman uses the Talmud to convince Jews of a Catholic truth, he is damned for a “perverse resurrection of Talmudic Judaism.” And Ben Douglass has been “sucked into all this erroneous thinking” and has “allowed himself to fall for…spiritual chicanery” by defending Schoeman’s perversion. But if Pope Benedict XVI does the same thing that Schoeman did, the Pope is merely doing something that St. Paul and even Jesus himself did.  And it is a “classic” and “completely appropriate” approach to evangelism.

Certainly, we are thankful that Bob has not launched another unjust attack on the Holy Father in this instance (although Bob has recently unjustly attacked the Holy Father in regard to another issue involving Jews - click here). But we wish that Bob could avoid the double standards that so often mar his work, especially when Jews are involved (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

We hope, therefore, that he will retract and apologize for his unjust attacks on Schoeman and Douglass, in light of his defense of Pope Benedict’s use of the Talmud. And we continue to hope that he will also publicly retract and apologize for the fraudulent quote he knows that he falsely attributed to Schoeman over a year and a half ago (see here.)

More Sungenis Dishonesty and Plagiarism with Ben Douglass?

The following was sent in by Ben Douglass with his permission to reproduce it here at this blog:

[The following is] another instance of Sungenis being very dishonest with me, back when I was still VP of CAI. On September 21, 2006, he sent me a draft of "Michael Forrest and the Jews", asking me for suggestions for improvement. Two of my biggest problems with the article were his matter-of-fact, yet completely unsubstantiated, claims that (a) Talmudic Judaism regards Gentiles as sub-human and (b) the Talmud lessens the penalty for rape of young boys and girls as opposed to rape of adults. My objections, and his responses, are below.

(Douglass) 2) Back off from these charges against the Talmud, unless you can back them up with specific citations from the text itself and respected Jewish commentaries. Even then, you should be somewhat equivocal. Say that such and such a passage is in the Talmud, and even though it might be saying something else, it sounds like it's saying this. And in any case these passages have been used by modern Jews to justify sexual misconduct. In the article "On the Rabbi's Knee" by Robert Kolker, from May 22 issue of New York Magazine, we are informed that a revered orthodox rabbi named Pinchus Scheinberg told concerned Jewish parents that as a matter of Jewish law, their rabbi's fondling their children did not count as sexual abuse.

Sungenis: Understood. Acutally, my main objection against the Talmud is that it denies Jesus as the Son of God, and says he is a false prophet under God's judgment. I don't think there is much to argue about that.

(Douglass) 3) I think you can find many orthodox Jews who will deny that Gentiles are animals or less than animals. If you are going to stick by this charge against Orthodox Judaism, you should explicitly quote an Orthodox Jew saying this.

Sungenis: I'll try.

The following is from the version of the article which he then published at CAI, and which is still posted there:

Forrest: Jews who follow Judaism loathe non-Jews and consider them less than animals.

Sungenis: I hope it’s not true, but unfortunately, I haven’t found too many Orthodox Jews (who believe and follow what is stated in the Talmud), to deny that Gentiles do not have the same rights as Jews, and in some cases, have the same rights as animals. If a Jew wants to repudiate the Talmud and admit that the Talmud does not have the whole truth, then I will be willing to accept his statement that “non-Jews are less than animals.”

Forrest: Judaism teaches that it’s okay to rape young boys.

Sungenis: Another half truth. I said that there are statements in the Talmud (not Judaism, per se) that lessen the crime of sodomy and pedophilia against young boys as opposed to the crime against an adult. The Talmud does the same for the raping of young girls as opposed to the raping of mature women. That being the case, it is incumbent on Michael Forrest to admit and condemn this breach of justice taught by the Talmud instead of trying to make me look bad while making Judaism and the Talmud look good. In fact, passages have been used by modern Jews to justify sexual misconduct. In the article “On the Rabbi's Knee” by Robert Kolker, from May 22 issue of New York Magazine, we are informed that a revered orthodox rabbi, named Pinchus Scheinberg, told concerned Jewish parents that, as a matter of Jewish law, a rabbi's fondling their children did not count as sexual abuse.

As you can see, he did not make the changes which he indicated to me that he would make. The only thing he changed was that he plagiarized my statement about Pinchus Scheinberg. So, I sent him the following e-mail:

Robert,

Your response to me indicated that you would back off from your statements about the Talmud teaching that non-Jews had the same rights as animals, and that not too many Orthodox Jews would deny this, and that the Talmud lessens the crime of sodomy and pederasty against the young. But you haven't qualified them. Orthodox Jews do quite often deny teaching that Gentiles have the rights of animals. And you replied "understood" to my advice that you should be equivocal about the pedophilia charge, and instead of saying "the Talmud lessens..." say that such and such a passage is in the Talmud, and even though it might be saying something else, it sounds like it's saying this, and some Jews have used it like this. But instead, you are as unequivocal as ever and simply included my reference as backup. You haven't made the changes that I thought you were going to make based on what you just told me. As it stands, this piece is going to make the scandal continue.

JMJ,
Ben