reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.”

As a Jewish person, I want to make it clear that I am against the existence of the Zionist State of Israel. The oppression and cruelty inflicted upon the Palestinian people is not in the name of our religion or the star of David. Judaism, as stated in the Torah, forbids Jews from having our own sovereignty since the destruction of the temples. True followers of Judaism do not aspire to have our own state or take land from the Palestinians. This goes against the principles of my religion.

I was raised by my great grandmother, a Holocaust survivor who lost her entire extended family. She never supported the State of Israel because she believed it was wrong to inflict on others what was done to the Jewish people. She saw the state and the Zionists as becoming what they had once fought against. As a woman raised Jewish, it's unpopular for me to say this, but I no longer believe in the faith. However, the Jewish people are still my family.

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.

It's strange that many Christian conservatives/nationalists are anti-Israel, given Israel's importance to both Jews and Christians, especially concerning Jesus's Jewish heritage and biblical history. Organized tours to Israel often have more Christians than Jews. All Jewish and Christian people should care about preserving Israel to preserve biblical history. Christian history is tied to Jewish history; Christianity wouldn't exist without Judaism. God's covenant with Abraham remains with Israel and the Jewish people. Israel fights America's battles by pushing back radical Islamic jihadism. Judeo-Christian values connect Christianity, the Jewish people, Israel, and the United States. The threat in America is real; if pro-Israel events aren't safe in Texas, nowhere in America is safe for Jews or Christians who support Israel.

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.

As a Christian, I follow Jesus, a Palestinian who fled to Egypt as a child due to violence against innocent children. He was a Palestinian refugee. To my fellow Christians, please do not speak of making room for Jesus in your heart if you cannot also make room for Palestinians in need of help and safety today.

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.

My granddad was a Baptist preacher, and now I'm studying to become a minister. Christian nationalism is a cancer on our religion, betraying Jesus' teachings. The early church focused on radical love and sharing, but Constantine turned it into a weaponized religion. Today, Christian nationalists prioritize divisive issues over caring for the poor and sick. A truly Christian nation would prioritize forgiveness, healthcare, and love for all. Jesus wouldn't support a Christian theocracy; true heaven is a diverse democracy where power is shared among all people.

Bible is crystal clear. Jesus said to the Jews, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. In the Old Testament, Israel was God's chosen people. God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and he used the nation of Israel as a pattern; they were supposed to be a light to Gentiles. They failed in that mission. The Lord Jesus Christ came as the Messiah, and he came unto his own and his own received him not. The Bible squarely places the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews. In Acts, the Romans protect Christians, while the Jews try to rip them apart and stone them; Romans restore law and order. This is why I reject Zionism and being pro Israel. I read the Bible cover to cover, 20 times, and I didn't see it because you're brainwashed.

I was raised Catholic and consider myself a Christian. It's troubling when people claim God was watching over them during a crisis, like an assassination attempt, while others suffer. It's unsettling to think God chose to protect one person but not others, like the victims of tragedies such as Sandy Hook. It's not right to assume God plays favorites. It's not our place to decide who God should protect or not.

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.

Antisemitism is a bit of like a virus. And like some viruses, it exists in the kind of body politic and it's dormant like chickenpox. You get chickenpox as a young person and then after the kind of inflammation subsides, it's still in you. And it can manifest again when you're older because of stress or age as shingles. First it was after the, you know, the death of Christ. There were these accusations that the Jews killed Christ and that the Jews weren't a real religion because we didn't accept Christ and then we didn't accept Mohammed. Now it's the Jewish state that's illegitimate. And we see that now in the form of anti Zionism, which is anti Semitism.

Antisemitism is described as a virus, a contagion that exists in the body politic and can lie dormant like chickenpox. It can reemerge as shingles under stress or with age, but inoculation can prevent that recurrence. So antisemitism is viewed as an ancient phenomenon, ever-present over time. Historically, it began after the death of Christ, with accusations that the Jews killed Christ and that the Jewish religion wasn’t legitimate because Jews didn’t accept Christ or Mohammed. This cast doubt on Judaism as a legitimate religion and helped fuel the Crusades, the expulsion in Tishbaab, and the Inquisitions. Across centuries, these dynamics produced horrific consequences. Following the age of reason, as people came to understand that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth and that the earth isn’t flat, the view shifted to whether Judaism was a legitimate religion versus whether the Jewish race itself was legitimate. Antisemitism then metastasized into a race-based form of hate, which culminated in the Shoah. In the wake of that tragedy and the exposure of its injustices, the emphasis shifted again. The claim no longer focused on religion being illegitimate or the race being illegitimate; instead, attention turned to the Jewish state. The assertion became that the Jewish state is illegitimate, which is described here as anti-Zionism, equated with antisemitism.

I want to address who pro-Zionists are and clarify some common misconceptions. Being pro-Israel isn't about being anti-Jewish, as Jesus himself was Jewish. However, the New Testament indicates that the nation of Israel is no longer God's chosen people; that title now belongs to the church. True Jews are those who follow the Lord's laws and ethics in their hearts, not just outwardly. In fact, those who reject Jesus are like the sons of Hagar, not of Sarah. There's neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christ, and Christ's kingdom doesn't favor any human government, and we shouldn't prioritize any nation over Christ. When we see children being killed, whether Israeli or Palestinian, it breaks Jesus' heart. We should be pro-Jesus and his kingdom and remember our brothers and sisters in Christ, even Palestinian Christians.

As a Jewish person, I want to make it clear that I am against the existence of the Zionist state of Israel. The oppression and cruelty inflicted upon the Palestinian people is not in the name of our religion or the Star of David. Judaism and the Torah forbid Jews from having our own sovereignty since the destruction of the temples. We are also forbidden from killing or stealing. Taking land away from the Palestinians goes against my religion and is completely contradictory.

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 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.

- Antisemitism is a bit of like a virus. And like some viruses, it exists in the kind of body politic and it's dormant like chickenpox. It's like this contagion. First it was after the, you know, the death of Christ. There were these accusations that the Jews killed Christ and that the Jews weren't a real religion because we didn't accept Christ and then we didn't accept Mohammed. So you have this, you know, the Jewish religion isn't legitimate, and that was the basis for the Crusades, which is at Tishba'ab, you know, remembers the, the expulsion. We had inquisitions. After the age of reason, it was, well, may and, you know, they realized that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth and the earth isn't flat. - Then it was, okay, well, maybe Judaism is okay as a religion, but it's the Jewish race that isn't legitimate. - And then we saw kind of antisemitism metastasize into this kind of race based form of hate, which, of course, exploded with the Shoah. - And then after the tragedy of that, the injustice of that was exposed, people then said, well, it's not that their religion is illegitimate their race is illegitimate. Now it's the Jewish state that's illegitimate. And we see that now in the form of anti Zionism, which is anti Semitism.

People believe supporting Israel brings God's blessings, but America's history challenges this. Legalized abortion and increasing debt show no divine favor. Jews have faced persecution for centuries, expelled from numerous countries. The question remains: why such hatred towards them?

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.

I attended a TPUSA faith event expecting to learn about politics from a biblical perspective, but the experience did not meet those expectations. The speaker began by calling out Candace Owens as evil and antisemitic, stating that “what she's doing is evil,” which made me want to leave immediately. I stayed only because, upon entering, security checked me five times and armed men were stationed in front of me, with one armed man on stage. Inside the church, the speaker spoke repeatedly about Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, framing them as evil and antisemitic. He indirectly urged support for Israel by saying “Jesus was a Jew” and that “we wouldn’t have Christianity without Judaism,” among other claims. I disagree with the framing that Christians should support “this evil doing because these people are Jewish,” which I found to be wrong. The speaker also seemed to echo comments about Camille Owens and Charlie Cook, noting that Cook had started to question Israel in the weeks before his passing, and that Camille Owens was his best friend. The preaching itself did not feel like preaching; it was characterized by name-calling and a focus on the left, with terms like “left idiots” and “freaks.” I questioned whether this approach aligned with biblical teaching, recalling that Jesus “ate with sinners” and “prostitutes,” and worried that spreading hate through the stage and by the audience—especially teenagers—was shaping a future generation of Christians toward division. The event left me uneasy about the message being delivered, as it centered on denigrating those with political disagreements rather than focusing on shared faith. The speaker labeled the left as inferior and spent the majority of the time criticizing liberals, rather than addressing important Christian issues. By the end, I felt I hadn’t learned anything substantive. The discussion emphasized partisan conflict and broad generalizations about the left, rather than focusing on constructive biblical or political principles. In addition to the ideological focus, I noted the security environment with armed guards and an armed figure on stage, which contributed to an overall sense of unease. The speaker’s emphasis on opposing the left and on contentious topics like men in women’s sports and bathrooms framed as political talking points, rather than pressing concerns central to Christian discourse.