reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 weave a dual-themed argument that identifies Rome with Edom and portrays a stark, apocalyptic conflict between Israel and the nations, particularly Christianity. They claim that the Romans identified with Edom are the evil kingdom in the Talmud and that Edom’s deviousness must end. They insist that “the Romans who are identified with Edom… whenever we see evil kingdom in the Talmud is always Rome,” and they repeatedly connect Edom to Amalek as “the grandson of Asav of Edom.” They state that Edom, Rome, and Amalek are essentially the same core force and that this force will be destroyed, with its memory removed from existence at the end of time. They argue that Israel holds a unique, exclusive position: “everything in creation from beginning to end is all about Israel. And it’s all for Israel. We have the Torah which was given to us from heaven and it will be in our hands for eternity.” They declare that “that’s only us” and that “the nations” are not in this plan. God, they assert, “put his name in us” and “revealed himself to the world through us,” calling Israel God’s firstborn son. They claim Christianity and Israel can never coexist, because they are opposites: “There can never be two on top. Only one.” They illustrate this with hand motions, describing one as up and one as down, and compare Catholic rhetoric as a mirror opposite to their own. Speaker 1 adds that the end-time plan involves the destruction of Edom and the false messiah, followed by the appearance of the true messiah, with Messiah ben David gathering the exiles and a third temple being built only after Edom’s fall and the false messiah’s exposure. They connect the end of Edom to the rise of Israel and to Jerusalem being built “properly.” They identify Satan as the archangel for Edom and describe Israel as rising “when Edom and the false messiah” are defeated. There is extensive apocalyptic projection: the world will turn against Israel via the Gog and Magog framework; all 70 nations will oppose Israel; Amalek and Ishmael are fused into broader conflicts between Ishmael, Edom, Christians, and Muslims. They describe Edom’s destruction as the destruction of Western civilization—Europe and the United States—as precursors to a messianic age. They claim that “the whole world’s destruction” will occur, with wars invoked by the “two-part plan” to remove idols and to force a convergence of Jewish law with end-time prophecy. Speaker 3 contributes historical-war context, noting that wars have historically led to the collapse of nations, and that World War II is cited in their framework as part of a longer arc toward a third world war that begins with Halta Deguila (redemption) and becomes the redemption when the Edomites are destroyed. They predict that major future wars will pit Ishmael against Edom and Muslims against Christians, and they recount how the Midrash portrays events culminating in Edom’s destruction before Mashiach’s arrival. Overall, the dialogue centers on a binary cosmic struggle: Israel’s divine exclusivity versus Edom’s (Rome’s) doom, with the end-times script predicting universal opposition to Israel, the downfall of Western powers, and the eventual assembling of a messianic order after the fall of the false messiah.

Great academies of the rabbis were established, Pharisees ruled Judaism. The Babylonian Talmud codified oral traditions, endorsed killing indirectly, and promoted adultery and child sex. Gentiles were deemed inferior, with no legal rights. The Talmud belittled Jesus, encouraging persecution. Jewish culture values knowledge and questioning. Israel's fight is supported. Anti-Semitic remarks were made. Circumcision practices were criticized. Supporting Israel was discouraged. Jewish hatred towards Jesus was highlighted.

Speaker 0: Andrew was the brother of Peter. He was a fisherman, and two had to pay taxes besides Jesus, but I might be mistaken here. Speaker 1: I will reconfirm that it is only Peter and Jesus that paid the tax for adults, and I will reconfirm that the other disciples were apprentices in their family's business and were therefore young as well. All of them were 12 and 15 years old, and I'll stand by that, which poses a lot of other questions. If it's the middle of the night and I walk into the wrong house and I see a 30-year-old man washing the feet of an unknown 12-year-old boy, what am I gonna do? I'm going to jail, guys. Think about these questions because it's not the version we've been told. When you redo the story with their ages in mind, it's a darker picture. Speaker 0: That’s really up for debate. If you apply modern-day Jewish disciples in halakhic schools, you might come to that conclusion. Times then were different. Speaker 1: Actually, scholars—look, I just did an article specifically on this, I have all the receipts. Scholars all agree that the age for discipleship within rabbinical circles was 12 to 15 years old. You could Google it. And, again, the only two people that paid taxes were Peter and Jesus. None of the other ones paid taxes and therefore were not adults. It’s in the scripture. Who cares if they're adults? It doesn't matter. Speaker 2: It’s about being a pedophile. Speaker 1: It’s not; it’s not taken out of context. Speaker 0: Peter, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen, right? Peter was already married; Jesus healed his mother-in-law. He was probably the oldest, mid-20s or 30s. The general consensus is Peter is mid-20s to 30s. John is 15 to 20, the youngest. James, late teens to early 20s. Andrew and Philip, late teens. Matthew, early to mid-20s. The others, Thomas and Judas, mostly teens to early 20s. I’m not sure you’ve seen 16-year-old teenagers like fifty years ago; they were men. It’s a different picture today. So I don’t buy the Jesus was a pedophile claim. Speaker 2: CQ Radio does the same bullshit. Try to make him a pedo. Speaker 1: It’s all about mystery rites and excretion from children in their mystery practices. Like adrenaline, they use children as a sacrament to open the veil. That’s what’s going on with the elites today—the Vatican, Israel, and all the elites. The Bible is a PG version. Wake up and stop attacking me because I’m telling the truth, especially if you don’t have the balls to research it yourself. Speaker 0: What the fuck was that? I’m not attacking you. You can have your own opinion. The general consensus of scholars on the Bible was what I just read—the estimated ages. The youngest were Jesus’ direct family, cousins. Speaker 2: CK will do the same thing—bring up the kid at the Last Supper, and he was doing it. It hinges on a false interpretation of one word. Speaker 1: Arts, magic, occult have two sides: black magic uses trauma, fear, and control to harvest from children; white magic uses unity and consent. They both conjure the same entities. One is loving, one is painful. Look at the ages of the disciples: 12 to 15. Only Peter and Jesus paid the toll; the others were not adults. Speaker 2: Quick question: who do you think is God? What is good in the world according to your worldview? Speaker 1: There is a loving creator. That has nothing to do with what I said. If you equate Jesus with God, that’s a you problem. Speaker 2: Are you going to say what you actually believe? Speaker 1: Move on. There’s a loving creator who created us in his image and loves us. Speaker 3: There’s been a lot of indoctrination of children recently. The biggest discussion is wars. Speaker 1: You can give us a little more. Speaker 3: They’re doxxing this kid. People know. Speaker 1: I’m an alpha warrior. Speaker 0: I have to check the Mossad Media Matrix. Speaker 3: Grandma gave him permission. It’s not going to end well. Speaker 1: I’ll be listening. Somebody can go listen there or you could hide on my page as a handle. You’ll be on my team, though. Speaker 4: Veritas suggested forgiving the heretic, but I don’t think it’s ours to forgive. It’s hubris to think that. We’re trying to have an open debate, but disrespectful behavior isn’t acceptable. Speaker 1: I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. Speaker 4: We can wrestle with scripture without ad hominem. You’re okay to say Muhammad’s a better approximation, but that’s a different topic. Speaker 1: Start by looking into the ages of the disciples. Thank you. Speaker 2: The real concern is elsewhere. Veritas has gone over that research and it suggests the opposite.

The conversation centers on whether “Judeo-Christian values” is an acceptable term, given religious differences between Judaism and Christianity. The first speaker, addressing Mr. Shapiro, says Mr. Shapiro has consistently promoted the idea that America was built on Judeo-Christian values. As a devout Christian, the speaker claims difficulty accepting the term because Judaism rejects Jesus. The speaker contrasts Christian beliefs that Jesus Christ is God with what they describe as teachings in the Talmud, saying it teaches that Jesus is burning in hellfire and excrement. They also point to a conflict with the New Testament’s teachings to love enemies and pray for persecutors, referencing the speaker’s claim that “verse 15 of the Talmud states that even the best of the gentiles should be killed.” The speaker asks why Mr. Shapiro insists on using what they call an “oxymoronic term” given these “irreconcilable differences.” Mr. Shapiro responds that the speaker’s reading of the Talmud is “a really bad read.” He also argues that the idea that any text can support the claim that Judaism, “broad writ,” is disdainful or hateful toward Christians or toward non-Jews is “a tremendous misread of Judaism over the centuries and particularly today.” He states that he can cite parts of the New Testament he finds personally problematic, as well as parts of the Quran he finds personally problematic, and that he could likely find problematic parts in the Old Testament as well. He says this does not indicate what Judaism is or its historic impact on the world. Mr. Shapiro asserts that “Judaism is the foundation of Christianity,” and says Jesus and the New Testament acknowledge this. He argues that claiming Judaism and Christianity are completely “de-linked” and teach two completely separate lessons ignores that the Old Testament is part of the New Testament. He says Christians and Jews think differently, but that the idea that they are completely disconnected is wrong. He further responds to the criticism based on Talmud citations by saying that citing texts from around 500 CE, during a time when Jews were being persecuted by Christians in the Roman Empire, is “a real stretch” to conclude that Jews today are overall hateful of Christians. He adds that he tells Christians to go to church and to reengage with their faith, and says he does not try to convert people to Judaism because it is forbidden in Jewish law. He concludes by saying there is a group online that spends all day cherry-picking bad lines from the Talmud to create a “giant myth” that Jews seek the extermination of Christians or some other conspiracy theory, which he calls a lie, and he reiterates that Judeo-Christian values are “quite real” because Judaism and Christianity have “an awful lot in common.”

The video discusses controversial passages from the Talmud, a compilation of Jewish oral history and lore. It mentions instances where the Pharisees indirectly caused harm, including the crucifixion of Christ. The Talmud is said to endorse adultery and sexual activity with minors, but only under certain circumstances. It also portrays Gentiles as inferior to Jews, denying them property rights and legal protection. The Talmud is critical of Jesus, defaming him and claiming he is in hell. It expresses hatred towards Christians and encourages their persecution. The video concludes by discussing the origins of the Talmud and its controversial passages.

The speaker presents a volume of the Talmud, the Steinsaltz edition, claiming it contains shocking and evil content that rabbis want to keep hidden. The passage discusses the ketubah, a marriage contract, and how its value differs for virgins and non-virgins. The speaker highlights a section that addresses scenarios affecting a woman's virginity status, such as intercourse with a man and a girl less than three years old, or a young boy less than nine years old with a grown woman. The speaker expresses outrage, stating that according to this passage, a Jewish woman could have a relationship with his ten-year-old son. He suggests that the Talmud promotes abhorrent behavior and questions what goes on in families that uphold it as a holy book. The speaker insists that this is not a debunked conspiracy, presenting the text as proof.

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.

The Talmud teaches that Gentiles are considered inferior to Jews, not even classified as men. Gentiles have no legal rights, and if a Jew is sued by a Gentile, the verdict favors the Jew. Sharing Talmudic teachings with Gentiles was punishable by death. Jews are praised as exalted beings, while Gentiles are viewed as vile. The Talmud promotes the idea that the best Gentile deserves to be killed.

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.

The video discusses the Pharisees and their influence on Judaism, particularly through the Talmud. It highlights Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees and their practices, including their ability to indirectly kill others and their loopholes for adultery. The video also mentions the Talmud's endorsement of child marriage and sexual activity with minors. It further explores the Talmud's view of Gentiles, depicting them as inferior to Jews and denying them property rights and legal protection. The video concludes by discussing the Talmud's negative portrayal of Jesus and its encouragement of persecution.

The speaker makes a controversial claim about the connection between pedophilia and the Talmud. They mention a specific passage and argue that it justifies sexual acts with minors. They also allege that elected officials who are Zionist engage in child abuse.

Speaker 0 expresses confusion and alarm, saying "Please tell me I'm fucking please tell me I'm reading this wrong. Gosh." They reference a claim: "It says, we too learn in the following I don't know how to say that word, that there is no legal significance to an act of intercourse with a girl less than three years old." and "A girl three years and one day old can be betrothed via sexual intercourse." They warn: "This isn't the Talmud, guys." They add: "This is what your rabbis are learning." Then: "This this three years and one day old can be betrothed via sexual inter" and finally dismiss with "Nope. Miss me with that shit. Nope."

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.

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.

According to the speaker, most Christians are unfamiliar with the Talmud, Zohar, and Kabbalah, where the 613 mitzvot originate. The speaker claims to have discovered a plot against Christianity within these texts. Citing "The Secret Doctrine in Israel," the speaker alleges the Talmud teaches that the Messiah will bring peace only after exterminating those who don't convert to Judaism. The speaker asserts that Judaism considers non-Jews a different species and that Jews are building an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem ruled by an AI Messiah enforcing a Luciferian one-world law. This kingdom aims to acquire Gentile riches and rule over Gentiles, who are not considered fully human. The speaker further claims that the transgender agenda originates in Zionism and Kabbalistic doctrine, specifically the Adam Kadmon concept of an androgynous original human. They allege that the endgame is to make humans androgynous through additives in food and drink, as part of a "repairing the world" doctrine. The second speaker states that the Talmud mentions six sexes/genders: Keva (female), Zachar (male), Androgynos (intersex), Tumtum (person with obscured sexual characteristics), Aloni (assigned male at birth, develops female characteristics), and Saris (castrated).

The video discusses the establishment of rabbinical academies and the formulation of new laws by the Pharisees, who were the rulers of Judaism. It highlights the Pharisees' codification of their oral traditions into the Babylonian Talmud, which Jesus criticized. The Talmud is said to contain passages that support the Pharisees' hypocritical and immoral behavior, including their role in the death of Jesus. It also mentions the Talmud's endorsement of adultery and sexual perversion. The video emphasizes the Talmud's negative view of Gentiles, considering them as barbarians and denying them legal rights. It concludes by criticizing the Talmud's defamation of Jesus and the negative attitude towards Christians.

- The text discusses alleged corruption of Judaism by occult and immoral practices of Babylon, focusing on pederasty or the sexual molestation of children. It asserts that today’s greatest rabbis of the Talmud would be locked up as child molesters. - It claims pederasty was deeply entrenched among respected Talmudic rabbis and that local rabbis could acquire a baby girl at three years of age as a sex toy by rape. - It cites passages from the Talmud as permission: - Nida 45 b: “a woman asks, master, at what age may a woman marry? At the age of three years and one day, he told her. A girl of three years old and a day may be betrothed by intercourse.” - “Rabbi Joseph said, come in here, a maiden of three years old and a day may be acquired in marriage by …” - “When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl, it is nothing.” - The footnote to this passage says, “tears come to the eye again and again. So does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” - The Talmud forbids homosexuality among adult Jews, but sodomy with small boys is said to be permitted. It states Leviticus 20:13 forbids sexual relations between men, yet the Talmud defines a boy under nine as a minor, not a man. - Because the boy is not sexually mature, the Talmud teaches he cannot throw guilt upon the rabbi who rapes him; only one who is able to engage in sexual intercourse may throw guilt upon the active offender, while one who is unable cannot. - It notes that the pederasty mentioned is endorsed by the very greatest rabbis of the Talmud, including Ben Zakai, Rabbi Ben Yohai, and Rabbi Akiba.

Speaker 0 opens by saying, “Don’t see how fucked up the world is. That’s a form of insanity.” Speaker 1 recounts coming home and writing a poem about Robbie to give him, then claims someone took away Robbie’s property and that Robbie began to blame it on the Jews. He adds that the US government and the Jews are “one of the same,” insisting, “That’s not true. True. No. Absolutely true. That’s never been…” and trails off. Speaker 2 asks about the Palestinian, and about “the good Jews,” questioning why the “good Jews” are not speaking against the alleged bad Jews. Speaker 1 responds with the idea that there are “very good people. Wonderful people,” but again asks why they aren’t talking against “the bad Jews,” implying they do not agree with the premise that those Jews are necessarily bad. Speaker 2 then asserts, “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.” Speaker 1 elaborates with a biblical analogy: in the New Testament, the devil took Jesus to a high mountain and offered him all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would bow down and worship. He interprets this as symbolic of Jews offering wealth and power in exchange for obedience, stating that this is “symbolic of the Jew” and that one can have all the money in the world if one bows down and obeys. Speaker 2 adds that the devil is based on the Jew and notes that old pictures of the devil even look like a Jew.

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.

The speaker asserts the following: The Talmud teaches them to enslave the Gentile financially through high interest. The Talmud teaches that they are to kill Christians. They're to depopulate Christians and Gentiles. The Gentile has no soul. He's an animal. Only the Jew, you know, has a soul and a relationship with God. And that impair in their paradise when Messiah comes, that each Jew is going to have 2,800 Christian and Gentile slaves at their beckon. So you can see how they like the dispensational pre millennial heresy because they become their useful idiots politically to to con constantly praise Israel as God's people.

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.

The video discusses the Pharisees' influence on Judaism through the Babylonian Talmud, which endorses disturbing practices like child marriage and bigotry towards Gentiles. It also mentions the Talmud's negative portrayal of Jesus and his mother, Mary. The Talmud's teachings led to Jewish persecution and expulsion in history. The speakers express pride in Jewish culture and unity, while a disturbing individual expresses violent anti-Semitic sentiments. The video ends with a graphic and biased portrayal of Talmudic Judaism.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of going to jail, but Speaker 1 denies any illegal activities. Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 is speaking freely in their country, to which Speaker 1 responds that it is legal to preach about Yeshua in Israel. Speaker 0 abruptly ends the conversation, but Speaker 1 expresses respect. Speaker 0 claims that the Torah instructs to kill Christians, and Speaker 1 acknowledges the discrimination against Christians. Speaker 0 asserts that Christians are idol worshipers.

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.

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.