Jew vs Anti-Jew Charles Moscowitz debates Dr. E Michael Jones

Jones states his thesis at around the 15 minute mark and following. That thesis is that Ratzinger blames, posthumously, anti-Semitism on the Catholic Church. Jones proof? Nothing except his totally incorrect interpretation of a statement made in a letter to a Rabbi in the posthumously published book Jones adverts to. In that posthumously published book, Ratzinger states: “…the sad history of Christian anti-Semitism was formed” by Christians too often, if not almost always, conducting disputation with Jews without respect for the Jews. The respect due the Jews manifests, says Ratzinger, only when the “righteous understanding” of the Old Testament- the Bible of the Jewish People- is pursued by both Jews and Christians involved in Jewish/Catholic dialogue. Ratzinger cites as “the righteous way” Our Lord’s way in the account of the disciples on the way to Emmaus: “opening up the Scriptures”to those disciples. So too must the Catholic dialoguer do for the Jewish dialoguer . Marcion and Luther, argues Ratzinger, opened up the Scriptures, and gave their own, and NOT the righteous interpretation of the OT (which righteous interpretation is safeguarded by the Catholic Church). The result of Marcion and Luther’s rejection of the authoritative interpretation of the Catholic Church led, and still leads, to anti-Semitism on the part of Christians who reject the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Old Testament- especially where the meaning of the Mosaic Law and its observance is concerned. Jones’ thesis about Ratzinger’s words is wronger than wrong. As he is dead wrong about the Catholic Church being “anti-Jewish”. That too is based upon his private interpretation of the word “Jewish”. Jones’ thesis is to Ratzinger’s words’ meaning what Marcion and Luther’s is to the Old Testament’s meaning: condemnable and poisonous to himself and anyone who falls for it. I have asked Dr. Jones to debate me on this topic of the Jews and he will not. Why not? If his position is correct, what has he got to lose?