reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Genesis: 'And God said, I will curse those who curse Israel' and 'And through you, I will bless all nations.' These quotes were spoken to Abraham. He asks, 'are Israelites or are Jews still God's chosen people?' and answers, 'No.' He cites Galatians: 'There is neither Jew nor Gentile slave nor free nor is there male or female for you all are one in Christ Jesus.' 'If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.' He claims this provides 'clear and undeniable evidence from scripture that God said that if you are one in Christ, you are God's people, and you are the seed of Abraham.' He states, 'the modern day Jews that reside in the state of Israel are not God's people. It is the Christians, the people who are one in Christ.' He urges, 'Read these passages, read the context around them, and don't just go based upon one little pluck from the bible to base your entire belief system off of when it comes to who are God's people.'

The speaker clarifies that the Talmud is not the most important book in Judaism. The Torah holds the highest position, followed by the Tanakh (Torah, Writings, and Prophets). The Talmud is next in importance. There are two versions of the Talmud: the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud. The speaker characterizes the Talmud as containing debates and disagreements between rabbis. The speaker suggests the verses to be read may contain content about Christ. The speaker states the Talmud is not necessarily considered canonical or authoritative.

The speaker discusses the idea of honoring God and being Jewish. They mention that according to the Torah, it is considered godly to kill them and that the Torah states that Christians are idol worshippers. They also mention discrimination against Christians.

To restore balance between the United States and Israel, the speaker says we must get our theology right. This is not a message aimed at Israelis or Jews; it targets Christians, the largest group of Israel supporters in the United States. He calls the belief that God favors some people by DNA 'the oldest of the Christian heresies' and says, 'The chosen people are people who choose Jesus.' He declares, 'That is not Christianity. It is heresy.' He warns that if America pulls the plug on Israel, god will pull the plug on us, and, 'God will kill you if you don't support Bibi Netanyahu.' He argues that 'The Christian message is universal' and that, 'If you find anyone leveraging the message of Jesus to justify the killing of innocents, that person is committing heresy.'

The discussion centers on the way lawmakers reference religion in foreign policy and whether that approach is effective. Speaker 0 asks the audience how many think a respected lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, even if he doesn’t know the verse, and whether that is the best approach. Speaker 1 responds by referencing Ted Cruz’s Genesis twelve three, and notes that many find that off-putting when contrasted with the New Testament, specifically Paul’s writings about the new flesh not being the same as the people in the old covenant. Speaker 1 asks, “Yes. Romans nine?” and agrees with the sentiment. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 if they are Catholic, to which Speaker 1 replies that they are converting Catholic from Judaism, revealing that they are ethnically Jewish. The exchange confirms Speaker 1’s Jewish ethnicity. Speaker 0 brings up concerns about APAC, asking if Speaker 1 has concerns about APAC. Speaker 1 confirms that they do. Speaker 0 notes that some people tell them that criticizing APAC equates to being anti-Semitic, asking whether this is true. Speaker 1 calls that notion ridiculous and says it’s great to have concern for one’s country. The conversation shifts to APAC’s influence. Speaker 0 presents a characterization (as a possible summary of Speaker 1’s view) that APAC represents a form of prioritization that cuts in line, away from the American people. Speaker 0 asks whether this is a fair summary. Speaker 1 answers affirmatively, “100%.” Finally, they articulate the core idea: the public votes and are citizens, but a separate group is described as receiving higher priority for whatever reasons. Speaker 1’s agreement underscores a shared concern that APAC’s influence creates a prioritization that bypasses the ordinary American electorate.

The speakers discuss views on Christians and Jews. One speaker questions how Christians can believe they killed God, referring to JC, and states that if JC was God, they couldn't have killed him. They mock Christians for celebrating JC's birthday, with one rabbi purportedly saying he's happy that millions of gentiles bow down to one Jew. One person claims they stopped praying to JC after realizing he was Jewish. Christianity is described as having taken elements from Judaism and adding "nonsense." JC is quoted from the New Testament (Matthew 5:17-19) as saying he didn't come to contradict the Torah. The speakers suggest that worshiping God means respecting Jews, as they are God's children. They imply that treating Jews well leads to God, while harming them is detrimental. They claim the Torah says God loves Jews the most and that JC was a Jew.

"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government. And those two those two things beautifully coexisted." "Exactly. And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government." "Right. That creates backlash that I don't think people understand."

I am proud to be a Jew, and Christians have welcomed me except for some antisemitic groups. Claiming that God has abandoned the Jews is wicked. Trying to push Ben Shapiro to embrace Jesus could bring devastation. I believe God has a plan for Ben as he is. I don't think the Jews were abandoned by God.

Speaker 0 begins by challenging the other person’s belief, saying, “He don’t we don’t believe the Jesus, man.” The line signals a heated disagreement about Jesus and hell. The speaker then asserts that the other side believes “that Jesus is burning and shit and hell,” and he agrees with that characterization by saying, “Oh, yeah. Exactly.” This exchange frames the conversation as a confrontation over the nature of Jesus and his fate after death. The dialogue moves to a reaction to the idea of Jesus suffering in hell. Speaker 0 labels the idea as “terrible,” immediately followed by a probing question about why it should be considered terrible: “Why it's terrible?” He clarifies his stance by presenting a broader theological boundary, insisting, “It's not you it's not your god, and it's not my god. It's not the Muslim god.” In this line, he separates gods across religions and implies that the accusation or belief about Jesus burning in hell does not align with his or the other speaker’s understanding of divinity. The question then becomes a direct inquiry about the nature and identity of Jesus: “So what is Jesus? Tell me. What is Jesus? Jesus Christ Jesus. What is fucking Jesus?” The repetition emphasizes the speaker’s demand for a clear definition or explanation of who Jesus is. Speaker 0 proceeds to provide a definitive, though provocative, description: “Jesus Christ is the lord and savior for Christian people.” This statement asserts a canonical Christian understanding of Jesus’ role, positioning Jesus as central to Christian faith. However, the conversation quickly shifts as Speaker 0 challenges the reverence of Jesus by saying, “You're disrespecting him when you're saying that he's burning in hell and shit.” The rebuke reframes the earlier claim about Jesus’ fate as disrespectful to Jesus’ significance in Christian belief. The exchange culminates in a stark declaration from Speaker 0: “Listen. Jesus Jesus is nothing.” This controversial line is followed by an appeal to biblical literacy: “And if you don't if you really, really believe in the bible, you need to understand you believe Jewish man.” Here, the speaker implies that belief in the biblical narrative recognizes Jesus as a figure rooted in Jewish tradition, or perhaps emphasizes Jesus’ Jewish origins as part of understanding his identity within Christianity. The overall conversation centers on definitions of Jesus, the appropriateness of statements about his afterlife, and the contrast between Christian, Jewish, and other religious conceptions of Jesus.

The speaker discusses the idea of honoring God and being Jewish. They mention that the godly thing to do is to respect one another, but also claim that the Torah instructs to kill people who worship idols. They imply that Jewish people discriminate against Christians, considering them to be idolaters.

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi living in two thousand years ago. He was a rabbi from the Galilee. He came to Jerusalem. He turned the money tables. I think people forget that the world of Jesus was a Jewish world. His name is Jewish. Jesus is standing in synagogue. He's holding the scriptures. But what are the scriptures? He's holding the Old Testament. He's holding the Hebrew scriptures. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, Jesus, the Jew. Salvation is of the Jews. The patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are all Jewish people. Christian, there's a Jewish man living in your heart. The scriptures are Jewish scriptures. Our Messiah is a Jewish Messiah. As Gentiles we are grafted into the root system of Israel. The church has not replaced the Jews.

Speaker 0 claims that various texts refer to negative depictions of Jesus and non-Jews. Specifically, text "Four seven one three" refers to Jesus as a fornicator, Gittin 56 states Jesus is burning in hell, and Shabbat one zero four b says Mary was a baba nessiah. Additionally, Baba Messiah 24 a allegedly states a Jew doesn't have to return a lost object to a gentile, Yebimath 98 a claims all children of goyim are animals, Tuspoth, Geminiath 84 b equates eating with a goy to eating with a dog, and Baba Messiah one fourteen b asserts gentiles are not humans but beasts. Speaker 1 states that these are legitimate verses in Judaism. Speaker 1 believes that Paul said in the New Testament that we must bless the Jews.

Charlie consistently asserted that Jew hate is brainwrought. He emphasized this point firmly, noting that he and the speaker have visited Israel twice together, and expressing that walking where their Lord walked and seeing the Bible come to life in technicolor makes hatred toward the place or the Jewish people incomprehensible. The speaker counters by saying that hatred arises from people who cling to conspiracy theories, which he describes as sick and something that needs to stop. He asserts a shared humanity by stating that no one is perfect—no Christian, no Jew, no Muslim. Humans are broken and sinful and in need of a lord and savior. He then underscores the importance of giving one’s life to the Lord. Once fully surrendered to the Lord, he claims that there is “no room in your heart for hate.” He expresses sorrow for the listener’s daughter and offers a prayer that the tragedy will be extinguished in the world. Despite such sorrow, he notes that we are living in “enemy occupied territory,” and that daily we must guard our minds and hearts. The recommended guard is reading God’s word. Finally, he insists that the Old Testament and the New Testament cannot be separated; they are inseparable in their message and significance.

Speaker 0 presents the view that great academies of the rabbis were established, thousands of new laws formulated, and that the Pharisees who killed Jesus Christ remained the rulers of Judaism. He asserts that in Babylon the Pharisees codified oral traditions into the Babylonian Talmud, which he claims reveals Israel’s apostasy and supports Christ’s descriptions of the Pharisees as hypocritical and malignant. He cites a Talmud passage in Treatise Sanhedrin claiming a Pharisee may kill indirectly, giving an example where binding a neighbor leads to starvation and liability is avoided. He contends the Pharisees manipulated Romans to kill Christ, arguing Romans were the direct cause of Christ’s death but the Pharisees claimed Romans as the guilty party. He states Christ called Pharisees adulterers and that the Talmud provides “loopholes” for adultery, providing examples such as exceptions for sex with a minor or a heathen’s wife, and endorses seduction of unwed adolescent girls described as designated bond maids. He emphasizes death penalties differ for natural versus perverse sexual acts, alleging that rape in a perverted form falls outside legal jurisdiction, and claims sexual perversion was a long-standing practice in Babylon. Speaker 1 continues by noting three major Talmudic treatises contain passages endorsing the seduction and marriage of three-year-old girls, with Simeon Ben Yohai among prominent rabbis upholding this privilege. He states that in Israel today, many venerate Simeon Ben Yohai. He quotes Simeon Ben Yohai and the great Raba approving intercourse with a little girl under three years and a day, comparing virginity to tears returning to a little girl, and asserts the same section covers sexual activity with small boys. He adds that the Good Samaritan story portrays Pharisees as racial bigots, unwilling to respond to a non-Jew’s suffering. He notes that God’s command to the Canaanites was harsh and that by New Testament times, separation and the sword had become obsolete, with God no longer making racial distinctions. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss Gentile status in the Talmud and Jewish encyclopedias, claiming the Talmud’s critical attitudes toward Gentiles, including that Gentiles are not men but barbarians, lack legal rights, and that a Gentile’s suit in Jewish courts favors the defendant if the plaintiff is Jewish. They claim Christians are curses within the Talmudic framework, that Jesus is portrayed as a bastard, and that Gentiles face death for Sabbath observance or for providing testimony in a Jewish court. They assert that the Talmud equips Jews with an ethic fostering bigotry, isolation, and persecution, leading to the expulsion of Jews from Babylon to the West by the eleventh century. Speaker 2 reframes as a positive counterpoint: the tradition of Talmudic questioning, continuous inquiry, and a culture of learning that never ends, which exploded when the walls of the ghetto fell, and remains part of contemporary Jewish culture. Speaker 3 declares solidarity with Israel, insisting “Israel’s fight is our fight,” vowing unity and resistance to anti-Semitism, and asserting they will not be discouraged, defeated, or silent. Speaker 4 interjects with a hostile confrontation, expressing willingness to “kill Christ again,” accusing Jews of killing Jesus, and making violent threats toward a pastor and others; a rabbi’s circumcision practice is described graphically as supportive of Talmudic Judaism, followed by a denunciation aimed at Christian Zionists.

Two thousand years of Christian history have been horrible to the Jewish people. Unspeakable atrocities have been committed against your family under the banner of the cross and in the name of Jesus. Even with many lifetimes of repentance, it would not be sufficient for all that has happened. Yet tonight there is a message: a new breed of Christian is alive in the world today. There is a new breed of Christian that says, along with you, for Zion's sake, I will not be silent, and for Jerusalem's sake, I will not be still. We have been divided. There is fear. Evangelicals are all missionaries who want to return everyone to Jerusalem so the apocalypse can come, or to have nefesh ben nefesh have a good year so Jesus can return. We know the stereotypes. Jesus both unites and divides us. For Christians, Jesus is our favorite Jew; for most Jews, he’s the cousin you don’t talk about at Pesach. But in this pivotal moment of history, we have an opportunity not to be divided, but to be unified. Everyone in this room—Christian and Jew—prays for the same thing: the coming of Mashiach. May he come soon and quickly and in our day, so we can all sing. And when Mashiach comes, there will be a great press conference in Jerusalem. The BBC and the New York Times will not be invited. The Jerusalem Post will conduct the interview with Mashiach and ask, is this your first visit or your second? The answer will be yes. None of us need to be ashamed or embarrassed or wrong. We are together ascending the hill of the Lord. Until Mashiach comes, we must unite and work. We must become partners—evangelical Christians, eagle's wings, and Jews—as partners in the divine will, working as never before, because we face the same threat. We face radical Islamic ideology on one hand, and radical wokeism and communism on the other hand, an unholy alliance against Western civilization. Against that unholy alliance, there must be a holy alliance that arises of Jews and Christians working together for the betterment of all the human family. It must happen, and it must happen now. Speaker 1: I’m now going to invite CEO of the Jerusalem Post, Ibn Bar Ashkenazi, to give the Shield of David Award to Bishop Stearns.

Speaker 0 opens with a provocative claim: “Fucked up the world is. That's a form of insanity.” The remark sets a mood of frustration and chaos. Speaker 1 then shares a personal moment: after coming home, they wrote a poem about Robbie which they intend to give him. They describe a reaction where someone took away Robbie’s property and Robbie began to blame it on the Jews, adding antisemitic rhetoric as a result. This accusation is presented as a reaction to a loss of property, with antisemitism framed as a consequence. Speaker 2 counters by specifying: “Not someone. The government. US government.” They elaborate that “the government and the Jews are one and the same,” asserting an equivalence between the government and Jewish people. Speaker 1 questions this claim, acknowledging it as “True true” and “Absolutely true. That’s never been—,” but the sentence trails as Speaker 2 presses the point: “Ask the Palestinians. The good Jews. Right? Why aren't the good Jews talking against the bad Jews? The so called good Jews out there.” Speaker 1 concedes that “There are. Very good people.” and “Wonderful people.” Yet Speaker 2 pushes back: “Why they talking” and then demands: “Why aren't the good Jews screaming against the bad Jews?” Speaker 1 suggests the reason is disagreement with the premise that there are “bad Jews,” implying that those who disagree are not such good Jews. Speaker 3 interjects with a stark comparison: “I equate the Jew and the devil together. To me, they're practically interchangeable. And I think the Catholic church did also. I think the entire concept of the devil is based on the Jews.” They reference the New Testament story where the devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and offers them if Jesus bows down and worships, implying this is symbolic of control and obedience for worldly wealth. Speaker 3 continues: “This is basically saying you can have all the money in the world. Do what you want. If you just do what I tell you to.” They interpret this as symbolic of the Jew. They claim: “This is symbolic of the Jew,” and even assert that “the devil is based on the Jew” and that “old pictures of the devil” resemble a Jew. Across the exchange, the conversation cycles between attributing political and financial power to Jewish groups, questioning the morality of “good Jews” versus “bad Jews,” and then offering a provocative theological claim linking the devil to Jews as a source of cunning or worldly power.

I'm currently studying Catholicism to grasp how a religion with Jewish roots, born from the Torah and a Jewish rabbi, evolved to persecute Jews for not converting. This history includes pogroms, burnings, and accusations, and now, figures like Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens are using Catholicism to attack Jews again. I'm reading Bishop Robert Barron's "Catholicism" to understand this better, but the very first paragraph presents a core Christian claim: that God became human. This is the point we Jews were historically slaughtered for rejecting. The Torah, Catholicism's foundation, strictly forbids idolatry, the worship of any physical form. So, when Catholic extremists attack Jews for not accepting Jesus as God, it's perplexing, as the Torah deems the concept of God becoming human as heresy.

It's a pretty known fact that the Jews are God's chosen people, that the Jewish homeland is Israel, that the Jews believe in the Old Testament, and that the Old Testament is about Jews. However, almost none of these facts are true. "Nowhere in the Bible does it call the Jews God's chosen people." "The Jews don't really believe in the Old Testament, and only maybe 5% of the people in the Old Testament can even be considered Jewish." "the expression anti Semite literally means against Shem or his descendants. However, being anti Jewish isn't the same as being anti Semitic." "Shem is the son of Noah, the guy who built the ark when Mesopotamia flooded." "Except Abraham has never been a Jew nor will he ever be a Jew."

I was once asked why evangelical Christians are so supportive of Jewish people and Israel. The answer is simple: you can be Jewish and have nothing to do with Christians, but I can't be Christian and not have everything to do with the Jewish people. My faith, scriptures, and everything I believe is built on that foundation. We are people of the book. If you read in Genesis that God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel, it becomes very clear.

The Pharisees established academies and created new laws. The Babylonian Talmud codified their traditions, showing their apostasy. The Talmud justifies Christ's criticism of the Pharisees. It endorses adultery and child sex, degrades Gentiles, and defames Jesus and Mary. The Talmud promotes bigotry, isolation, and persecution. Despite this, Jewish culture values knowledge, questioning, and unity. The speaker expresses pride in Jewish identity and history. Anti-Semitic remarks are made, advocating violence. These extreme views do not represent all Jewish people.

Christians should support the biblical Israel, not the current state of Israel. Criticizing those who claim to be Jews but are not is mentioned in the Bible. Questioning and criticizing should be allowed, as it is a red flag when certain groups or narratives cannot be questioned.

The speaker claims that several common beliefs about Jews are false: that they are God's chosen people, that Israel is their homeland, that they believe in the Old Testament, and that the Old Testament is about them. The speaker asserts that the term "anti-Semite" is misused, as Semites include Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, not just Jews. Abraham was a Hebrew, not a Jew, and God promised he'd be the father of many nations. The Abrahamic blessing passed to Jacob (Israel), whose son Judah fathered the Jewish people. However, Israel favored Joseph, whose sons Ephraim and Manasseh received the Abrahamic blessing. The speaker says that the Jewish homeland, Israel, was originally Canaan, inhabited by immoral Canaanites. After a civil war, Jews ruled Judea, while Joseph's sons ruled the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Jews were later conquered by Babylonians and Romans, leading to revolts and banishment. The speaker alleges that Jews don't truly believe in the Old Testament, prioritizing the Talmud, which contains disparaging remarks about Jesus and Christians. The speaker concludes that the Old Testament isn't primarily about Jews, as many figures like Moses and Paul were not Jewish. The speaker states that the Bible encompasses the history of various nations, not just the Jews.

A speaker discusses the Talmud and claims it relates to current events in America and the Middle East, asserting that it is not taught in schools or openly covered by the media because “it’s controlled by the people who follow it.” The speaker argues it is important to know what is in there because it affects attitudes toward Jewish people, and describes it as dangerous to talk about. The speaker references specific passages: “Sanhedrin 59 a, a goy. Now what is a goy? A goy is a sheep or a cattle that is controlled. … A goy, Gentile, that's me, who pries into the law, Talmud, is guilty of death.” The speaker states that this demonstrates the danger and notes that they have experienced “unprecedented hatred and threats of violence” since beginning to talk. They describe the listener’s attitude as dehumanizing, saying “she doesn’t even look at me as a human being. I am simply an anti Semitic in her eyes.” The speaker confirms the interaction included a moment where a council member would not engage, and asserts that public discourse requires the critic to be able to speak, even if the council member is not pleased. The speaker cites another line, “Libre Davids 37. To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews. For if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly. That that's in the Talmud.” This is presented as further evidence of the speaker’s view of official Talmudic instruction about relations with non-Jews. A subsequent participant, Mister Worthy, closes the public comment by being cut off and told the time is complete. The conversation shifts to a different speaker who pivots to anti-Semitic and conspiratorial assertions: “Who was Germany fighting in 1933? That's all he asked. Who funded the sixty movement? The Jews. What did blacks get out of it? You know what? What did blacks get out listen to this vile It ain't no.” This line is followed by “Don’t have You go sit down. You don’t have You go sit down.” The speaker maintains that the public address is restricted, and a city official states that “The comments are not under jurisdiction of the city of Sacramento nor specific to the agenda item,” indicating the end of public remarks. The exchange features interruptions, a defense of free criticism of public officials, and a juxtaposition of controversial religious-text references with hostile, dehumanizing statements about Jews and other groups, all within a city council meeting context.

"Christians need to step up." "As someone who's Jewish, you know, Jews are point o 2% of the world." "We're 2% of America." "We're not trying to take over anything." "I would love to see Christians return back to the church." "I would love to see Christians get back to Jesus." "So Charlie Kirk was a Christian." "Don't get it twisted, but he honored both books, the Old Testament, which are the five books of of Moses, and the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus." "So it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive." "There's no better role model for young men than Charlie Kirk."

The speaker explains that the Gospels were considered more dangerous to Judaism than pagan writings. They mention a Talmudic rabbi who believed that Christian writings should be burned because Christianity posed a greater threat than paganism. Another speaker shares their personal experience of being raised in Judaism, stating that modern Judaism has little connection to the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament. They explain that the authority of the rabbis, based on the Jewish Talmud, shaped their understanding of God and the world. The speaker also mentions that the rabbis emphasized Jewish superiority over Gentiles in intellect, morality, and race.