Unbelievable: Judaism vs. Christianity on Jesus | Pastor Reacts

The Opening Critique of Respecting Other Faiths

Some of the key missteps you think or mistakes that christians have often made about jesus. I mean where where do you begin. Oh dear lord how much time do we have.

The rabbi it's a matter of not should you evangelize if you want to by all means do so. And you do it not by telling the other person what's wrong with that person's religion. You do it by telling the person what's right with your religion.

So what. She's suggesting that we respect.

Other people's faiths. Really. Is that what elijah did with the prophets of baal. Is that what shadrach meshach and abednego did with nebuchadnezzar. They just you know what they just respected. Other people's faiths.

Seems to me that when you respect other faiths in the bible it leads to all kinds of trouble. Just look at solomon. Because they're not accurately capturing christianity with these comments. As a matter of fact these comments are getting worse and worse as time goes on.

Framing the Unbelievable Conversation and the Historical Jesus

And we're back. I am fresh off the plane from dallas texas for an event called idea summit there we go. That was a unique experience. A lot of pastors there got to train pastors as well as do a q a with their kids.

I thought it was a great time. All of this in the middle of a huge ice storm that shut down the city. So that was interesting and i'm using that word as a euphemism. Anyway i'm back and i'm ready to party.

By the way huge shout out to dr tony evans and alan parr who both gave talks at the event. Um i was able to chat very briefly with the both of them. Great guys. Very nice very personable. Okay. Well today let's look at an unbelievable video that i think is about a month old.

Six weeks or something like that. I know excuse me it's a year old. Okay. But it caught my eye. Now. This is unbelievable with justin briarley. So maybe this should be a debate. Teacher reacts right. We have a jew and an anglican talking about the historical jesus.

Will they agree with each other. Will they disagree. Who is jesus. Do we christians not understand the real jesus. Well.

Let's find out in this video let's talk about that work. Aj just give us a sense of what are some of the key missteps you think or mistakes that christians have often made about jesus. I mean where do you begin.

Oh dear lord how much time do we have. I maybe start with with jesus. The rabbi. I mean what how do you conceive of jesus. I mean when you strip away the halo and the you know golden hair and blue eyes.

What what sort of a rabbi.

Was jesus as far as we can. Yeah that's a good point. So i i am gen x so i was born in the late 70s. I grew up with a movie that i believe came out a year before i was born uh and it's it was called jesus of nazareth.

Does anybody know what i'm talking about. You've seen this movie came out in the 70s and jesus was this foppish british uh you know pale blue-eyed guy and that's all i knew. That was the only jesus movie that there was no chosen.

There was no you know what i'm saying like there was no um passion of the christ you know with jim caviezel. None of that. So blonde hair blue-eyed jesus. Yeah that's. That's not it. How. From the historical record.

Jesus as a First-Century Jewish Teacher

Yes. Well he's not a rabbi.

As we think about rabbis from rabbinic literature correct. And any more than paul would be a church father. As we think about the church fathers uh from the the the antion and post-nicene fathers. Um if rabbi's just an honorific um it's kind of like sir it's my master my great ones.

It's like sir um his teacher um he is a lay teacher. He tends not to cite scripture very much. And i think when scripture does get cited i think that's the gospel writer coming in and filling in the gaps.

Um i think he has an enormous amount of lay wisdom. I think he's influenced strongly by the prophetic tradition. He would have heard scripture in synagogue and that's what you hear when you grow up. And since he's not distracted by the internet or the local lending library because there is none in nazareth scripture scripture is his base text.

Um i think i think personally he had an experience of god. Um today we might call those a born again experience or religious awakening or the bolt from the blue i. And it was probably at his baptism that something struck him.

That so i mean this is uh important to note we're listening to a person who does not believe that jesus is the messiah that he is the god man the incarnation of god. She thinks jesus had an experience that christians later have come to know as being born again.

Okay. But in order to say that she has to downplay or ignore the things that jesus said to identify himself as the messiah as the son of man who clearly was a reference uh to you know daniel chapter 7 where it says.

One like a son of man ascended to god and was given glory dominion in a kingdom jesus referred to himself throughout his ministry as as that son of man who it was understood by the jews would be the messiah.

And so right now i'm pointing things out that someone with a jewish background should immediately key in on. But for some reason dr levine doesn't bring this up. So it seems like she's ignoring these things i don't know or you know downplaying it or i'm not sure not aware in order to say that jesus was he was just a jew who had an experience of god at baptism he was.

He was commissioned to prepare his people for the unbreaking of the kingdom of god. Okay that's fine. Where where christians get it wrong. Oh well they think that jews are all struggling to follow every single jot and tittle of the law and if they don't god's going to snap them with a lightning bolt or condemn them to hell which makes all jews either you know sanctimonious or neurotic.

And jesus comes along and says don't worry be happy. Well okay. So obviously.

Dr levine she's credibly you know incredibly intelligent. She's speaking off the cuff. It doesn't seem like there are any notes in front of her and so hyperbole and imprecision is just part of conversations like that.

I do this too by the way you know. Especially if i'm trying to communicate something in a memorable way so i don't. I don't really have a huge issue with her take on christians thinking that jews needed to follow the law in order to be right with god.

I mean she's close i think to what a lot of christians believe what a lot of christians think about all of that stuff. What i take issue with is her view of christians thinking jesus came to say oh don't worry be happy.

Right. I highly doubt that's what a christian's view jesus overarching message is. Think about that. If you could sum up in a sentence jesus overarching message in the gospels would you characterize it as don't worry be happy.

I don't think. So it would be what you know the kingdom of heaven is here. Or repent. Pick up your cross and follow.

Me and i will give you eternal life. When he doesn't he actually makes the law more rigorous right. The law says don't murder. He says don't be angry. That's harder. The law says don't commit adultery.

He says don't think about it. That's harder. That integration of the internal and the external. A number of christians think that jesus came to do away with purity laws quite to the contrary. What he does is restore people to states of ritual purity so that when people who are in states of impurity like a hemorrhaging woman it's probably a vaginal or uterine hemorrhage.

Now i know people might be listening to this over dinner and they don't want to hear such things. But you know it's in the bible um there's no law saying your lady you have to be locked up in some back shed.

There's no law against touching somebody with leprosy. So what he's. You know the chosen just.

Did an episode on this right the the bleeding woman who grabbed one of jesus tassels uh on the hem of his garment and was healed which by the way was an implicit expression of the woman's recognition that jesus was the messiah.

She knew he was the messiah and therefore she remembered the the teaching from the book of malachi on the messiah it said that this person would have healing in his wings. The word wings in hebrew also means tassels you know the hem of his garment.

In other words so the fact that she grabbed jesus tassel with the expectation of being healed is her way of communicating that she believed he was the messiah. It's it's a powerful historical.

Moment there doing is he's restoring people to states of ritual purity. Um when he debates with fellow jews about the law like can you pluck grain on the sabbath. Which in fact he's not doing his disciples are doing it.

That's a that's a debate at the time. Um and just points this out in the book. You know the law says honor the sabbath and keep it holy. Um and i'm just paraphrasing here. You know one jew looks at another and says what constitutes work.

And now you have two synagogues. Um because we're still debating that. So he debates with fellow jews about how to follow the law. But that doesn't take him away from the law. You don't debate something in which you have no investment.

Correct. Um a number of my christian friends think that jesus invented feminism and that first century jewish women were oppressed and repressed and depressed and suppressed by this horrible patriarchal androcentric tradition.

And jesus comes along and says oh no everybody's equal. No to the contrary. Um if he did then six out of the twelve apostles would have been women. Right. And and the mom would have gotten some higher role.

He's a first century patriarchal jew who has women followers. As did pharisees as did john the baptist as did others. The other yeah.

I so i'm not too familiar with whether or not itinerant rabbis let alone first century pharisees had female disciples. Maybe they did. And so i mean again not a whole lot of issue that i would take with what dr levine is saying.

Right at this point it's just her conclusions that don't travel the eternal distance necessary to truly understand jesus and what he was accomplishing here on earth. That's what i take issue with. I will say this.

She seems to speak as if jesus wants to maintain the law of moses. And i suppose this suggests that she thinks christians believe that jesus came to abolish the law. And and maybe there are christians who think that.

But those of us who are careful to read and teach the scripture do remember jesus literally saying i did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Right. But then the six million dollar question to that is what did he mean.

Did he mean that the law of moses should remain in play as part of the outworking of the mosaic covenant established at sinai. Or did he mean that he is the perfect fulfillment of the law perfectly embodying and living up to that requirement.

And therefore being the fulfillment of god's law by proxy so to speak for those who will follow after him and trust in him. See christians believe the latter. And because we do we recognize that fulfilling the law is not the goal the goal is to know god to return to the edenic relationship that mankind once had in the garden.

And jesus accomplishes that for us. Romans 8 3 says for what the law could not do weak as it was through the flesh god did sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh. And as an offering for sin he condemned sin in the flesh so that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the law in us because he lived a sinless life. And now it's his righteousness that we are identified by. Why. Why is that the case. Because we are his haverim. We are his disciples.

We are following after him and abiding in him. And the dust of his sandals are all over us. So if you're watching this and you are an orthodox jew or you know one right. Please consider this conversation.

Please consider my reaction to it. Send this video around. Because it would be a shame a real shame for someone of the jewish faith to dismiss jesus without really considering what he actually said and what he actually was talking about and what.

Jesus Was Not a Christian

He meant justin can i just put it this way. Yeah go ahead. Jesus wasn't jesus wasn't a christian. This this is the sort of this i think is the sort of like this is. The key mistake is that christians think jesus was a christian and that this is.

Christianity is weird as a religion insofar as the person who as it were founded it wasn't a member of the religion he actually founded. Now this is a very weird business about christianity and it distorts people's thinking jesus never heard the word christian that wasn't in his mindset.

Okay i guess i agree with that right.

Jesus was not a christian right. Because to be a christian is to be a little christ which was originally coined in the first century to be a slur against christians and it was wielded against them as such.

So i agree with that. You know again we christians are jesus's disciples and it is the to be like our teacher. But where is this going like that. That's uh you know. Okay jesus is not a christian but where is where we headed.

Here let's find out can i ask a question.

About that because i i like your point but i want you to develop it just a little bit more. Yes right. And i think you're right. So when you say that people think jesus is a christian and he's not what's the connotation of christian that they're uploading to what jesus is.

Yeah. Well it's that so.

They are they are up they are projecting back onto him a sort of post-nicene or post-augustinian or the two thousand years of sort of what you what what has come to be understood as christianity. But particularly post you know the sort of stuff that paul does with with with christianity now i just don't think that's a part of.

Jesus was a uh temple going jew who although he had arguments with the temple and you know jews having arguments with jews by the way is not an unknown thing. Um and he he wasn't unique in having arguments with the with the temple authorities i mean i have to say cook the quran lot probably even more so in terms of their arguments with uh with the temple authorities.

But we we so readily project back. I mean we've got used to the idea it's not a controversial thing to now say obviously jesus wasn't blonde hair and blue eyed. So we've we've you know lots of people have have we've got that far very very good.

That's that's great. But now let's actually let's let's keep on going with with where that goes and say actually jesus jesus was didn't have this sort of fully formed christian um philosophy jesus is jesus referencing.

Um boy so with this kind of conversation it's it's a little difficult because you have uh you know this is extemporaneous off the cuff and there's you know a tangential nature to at least uh with this gentleman the way that he's talking.

So you're trying to track it right. And i'm hearing a little bit of it right that that basically there is a difference between i guess the philosophy of of jesus and the philosophy of christians today.

He starts to talk about. Perhaps it was introduced with paul so maybe paul came in and and started coloring in areas that jesus didn't intend to. I mean a lot of this is implicit and suggested right. Which is interesting because paul was not post-nicene paul was a jew.

So that's weird um but i guess the question that comes to mind is what exactly is it about the christian's philosophy today that does not align with the jesus of history. You know i mean like what is antithetical to jesus teachings or jesus own philosophy.

And i'm not actually hearing anything right. Or. Or was it just supposed to be the blonde hair blue-eyed jesus comment. Because i got news for everyone hollywood's portrayal of jesus never confused those of us who read the bible and have understood for thousands of years that jesus was a jew born in bethlehem and raised in nazareth.

This is what.

I'd say and i'd like to hear what aj says about this. We call it the new testament. I mean we're used to knowing that we shouldn't really call the old testament the old testament the sort of supersessionism.

I call it the hebrew script but the new testament is. There's not that much new in the new testament. Okay this is a very this is a thing that actually so much of the new testament is drawn from the book of isaiah or from from the hebrew scriptures doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense as a book without being understood in terms of the hebrew scriptures. So there's not much new in the new testament and that's what christians really say. Okay this is actually a.

Great point all right. I agree with it this. This is why i have said that we as christians today should try our best to understand the jewishness of discipleship and the jewishness of jesus. I literally just said this in a video last week or something like that.

Somebody recently responded to me to to what i said the other week and they warned me about becoming a judaizer or something. It's not about that at all. The goal is to know god more. And the way to know god is by reading his word.

But when you do that we have to recognize that the vast majority of what jesus said is either quoting from alluding to or referencing in some kind of way the old testament right. Pop quiz. You ready for this.

Which book of the bible did jesus quote from the most. Which book of the torah did jesus quote from anybody. Deuteronomy. Did you know that. Well and i mean his disciples did the same thing. By the way when peter stood before everyone at pentecost in the book of acts he said what is happening right now in front of you is the fulfillment of the prophecy of joel right.

Paul quoted uh the old testament in his letters in romans chapter one. You know the famous sort of thematic statement of the whole letter in verse 16. I'm not ashamed of the gospel of jesus christ right.

But then he says in the next verse verse 17 for as it is written the righteous shall live by faith. He's quoting the old testament. He's quoting habakkuk. So yeah i agree with uh this gentleman's assessment.

Does that mean that christians today somehow have some kind of philosophy that is antithetical to the jesus of history. No. It just means that in order to fulfill our purpose which is to know god then we should do our best to understand the bible that we have in our hands.

And that requires understanding more about the jewishness of jesus. Why did the christian.

Promise and Fulfillment in the Old and New Testaments

Revolution take place if if he was in a sense so typical of of other jewish people at the time.

Well part of it is packaging. Um you can have jews who were known as healers and there were other charismatic healers or exorcists at the time and i think jesus was a healer and an exorcist. You can have other people who were teachers and they're charismatic.

You have people who convince others to leave their mothers and fathers and spouses and children and follow him. And that becomes a sectarian movement when you put it all together. And then you have a group of his followers who are convinced that he is lord and savior and therefore convinced because they experienced him as having risen from the dead.

That gives you something that's quite distinct. Um he does say some things that i can't track elsewhere. He's the only person i know who comes out and says you have to love your enemies. Um which is really hard.

Um jewish law says yeah you can't mistreat them. If you're hungry you've got to feed them. Right. If they're if they're lying in a ditch you've got to take care of them. But nothing says you have to love them.

Jesus just ups the ante a little bit for a lot. Um jesus talks about making so. So i really do appreciate.

Uh this window into the conversation between someone like dr levine with her level of expertise and the other gentleman here. Um and that's why i love unbelievable as a show. I think justin briarley does a great job with it.

What i'm finding a little difficult at the moment is someone like dr levine treating love the way that the rest of us would. What do i mean by that. I mean that we look at love. And we speak about it.

And we think about it the way that a greek would love to us in our modern western sensibilities is a feeling. It's a feeling that is actually distinguished from action. It's it's distinct. Uh a biblical jew would not distinguish.

They would not separate out love from action. As a matter of fact a biblical jew would understand that love is a verb. And so you just cannot disentangle the concept from the action. It's funny because uh this same problem pops up in the book of james.

So james says faith without action is dead. But he's saying the same thing here you cannot disentangle faith from action such that if you say you have faith but never act on it you don't have faith. Well it's the same thing with love.

If you say you have love and you do not obey jesus you don't love him. But but that concept is not new. When you read the old testament there are commands to perform actions that take care of your enemy.

Dr levine just admitted that they exist. Right. Proverbs 25 tells us if your enemy is hungry give him food to eat. If he is thirsty give him water to drink. And if you do this god will reward you. Well these actions are an expression of love.

How do i know that. Well because paul quotes proverbs chapter 25 and romans chapter 12. And he says these are expressions of love and goodness. And who was paul. Paul was a jew of all jews a pharisee of all pharisees.

He understood that love is a verb and it's expressed in action. So when jesus says love your enemies it's not a new concept. He's reorienting the israelites of the first century to the spirit of the commands that were given in the old testament.

Even when he initiates a new covenant in his blood he's not pulling something out of thin air. What he's doing was promised all the way back in jeremiah and ezekiel. So not new. Um more challenging. Yes.

Covenant in his blood i don't know anybody else who's doing. That's interesting. Um so he has his own distinctive parts and a great much of his teaching. When it comes to things like ethics morality storytelling that's part of the culture.

I also would not dismiss charisma. Certain people have it and certain people don't. And you can and you can just see this if you watch theater right you get the main the the actor who was hired to play the part and it's fabulous.

You get the understudy. And the evening was a disaster. Same words different presentations won't leave that.

Well same thing is true of preaching. You know you get the people at church you know what i'm talking about. You get the main teacher the main teaching pastor up there and everyone is edified. He's sick or he's got to go on vacation or he's on sabbatical and you get the understudy up there and when the pastor's gone meh you know it is what it is.

I want to take issue with something.

That giles said. Right. Because i'm an american and we're crude i actually think um that the term old testament should be recuperated. Oh in this in the same way that we recuperate words like queer which is perfectly normal term.

Oh i see it can be quite complimentary. Why. Well first of all um at last time i checked which was last night when i was finishing your book you're still an anglican and in your old testament you have greek stuff.

So if you talk about the hebrew bible you're actually chopping off part of your canon. Um hebrew bibles. And is a protestant term. You're not a protestant you're part of the catholic community. Right.

She got books like judith judith and suzanna. You got the books of the maccabees week the holiday of hanukkah. You got the books of the maccabees. It's a fair trade. Um so i i don't like all texas hebrew bible and i also don't like it.

She's funny just that jews and christians are reading the same canon and we are not because the story that the old testament tells starting with genesis and ending with malachi the prophet malachi is a promise model.

Everything drives toward jesus and that's how his early followers read the text. And he may have read it the same way if he thought he was commissioned in that sense. So it's a promise model. And then you get the fulfillment model.

And you get it really coolly. So that's interesting. Um i'm i'm chewing on that. Protestants have packaged the old testament bible in a particular way so as to create a promise model. And then she said.

And that's the way that the followers of jesus the disciples of jesus understood the old testament. Well how did they. If the protestants packaged the old testament after the disciples of jesus how would the disciples of jesus understood this as a promise model if the packaging was the thing that created the promise model.

Maybe i missed something. Let's keep watching. Go back to that baptism scene you have by.

The way a lovely picture of you and your child in the river. That's that's how the book ends. I think it was great before the back matter. Um uh. So what happens. Malachi predicts right at the end of malachi the end of the old testament uh the coming of elijah to announce the messianic age and then the gospel of mark which is probably the first gospel that we have begins with john the baptist in the role of elijah announcing not the messianic age but the messiah jesus.

So it's a promise.

Fulfillment model. You know the problem is not about the old bit the old. The problem is the old and the new juxtaposition. It implies this form of supersessionism. Yeah christianity is a sort of upgrade of judaism and this is the problem seeing it as a sort of like you know well that that's how it used to be but now it's this.

Okay. And that's what's implied by that and that's that.

That is a bob. That's bothersome. Yeah i'd rather. So what this gentleman is saying. What is this general. I keep saying gentlemen fraser. Mr fraser what mr fraser is saying is he keeps referring to supersessionism.

Right. What is supersession is supersessionism refers it's. It's a term that points to something called replacement theology. So not going to get into that topic. Uh don't have the time for it. But what is going on in the bible is this god is setting aside people people who he loves and who love him.

And through these people he is redeeming the world. He's putting the world back together after it has been broken. That means then that christianity is just the most recent expression of this redemption story.

But the story didn't start with christians. Okay the people of god didn't begin with christians. Began much earlier. Uh with with noah abraham isaac jacob and others such that there is this divine family tree that we see growing up through the history of humanity that we discover in the bible.

The apostle paul gives us this picture of a divine family tree. By the way in romans chapter 11. And christians are the most contemporary branches of this tree. But this brings me back to the point that i've been trying to make you know which is in order to fulfill our purpose as christians we need to understand on a deeper level this divine tree.

Why. Because then we'll understand god more. And we'll also keep from becoming arrogant towards the branches. And that's literally what paul warns against in romans chapter 11. So fraser at this point wants us to appreciate the connectedness of the old testament to the new.

Or that's what it seems to me. And if that's what he's about. Well then i'm all.

For it shift it it's it's not an upgrade of judaism it's an upgrade of the old testament. And that's correct in the same way that rabbinic literature is an upgrade of the old testament because both judaism and christianity.

Or is an upgrade of the tanakh right the jewish bible because what christianity is is commentary on and nobody's practicing the type of judaism that jesus was practicing second temple judaism. So you've got rabbinic commentary over here saying here's how we understand deuteronomy or here's how we understand leviticus.

And you've got the new testament over here saying here's how we understand deuteronomy and here's how we understand leviticus. It's the it's an older text for both of us. I just want old to be respected.

And that's why i want to recuperate that term. So again the most quoted book by jesus from the torah was deuteronomy. So i'm i'm hoping that you're tracking the discussion. Um my assessment of this so far at least from dr levine's perspective is she says a lot of accurate things about jesus and what he was doing in the first century but she falls short of capturing jesus full mission and the full meaning behind his statements probably because she refuses to see him as messiah and lord and savior so because of that she has a reductionistic view of jesus that keeps her from.

Truly seeing him. But. But you you cast this as one of the problems in a sense giles it's both a blessing and a curse. The universality of christianity also means that it becomes a sort of begins once i suppose rome gets involved um to be imposed upon people and to and and.

Christianity, Empire, and the Danger of Rootlessness

Is that is that your problem with the way that it was ultimately divorced from its jewish roots.

Well i've a lot of problems but this is one of them um so one of the things that um that the stalinists uh accused jews of being was rootless cosmopolitans. Uh that's a that's a that's a thing that's that's regularly accused that's not jews.

That's christians who are rootless cosmopolitans fundamentally. Uh christianity uh judaism is a religion that has a rootedness in place. Christianity is is rootless it has no it has no ultimate loyalty to place.

Now i have a i i.

Christianity is rootless. I'm letting that one sit for a moment. I'ma i'ma i'ma let him finish. I'ma let him finish. But to say christianity is rootless. To hear this with my pastor ears it's a poor choice of words.

We have a vine that we are connected to as branches. Jesus is the vine that we are connected to. He is our root. Paul says in romans chapter 11 that we have been grafted into an olive tree and it is the root of the olive tree that nourishes and supports us.

So rootless i mean that's. It's a poor choice of words. If perhaps fraser is trying to make some other kind of point then maybe i'ma let him finish. There are good things and bad things about.

About rootedness in place. And there are good things and bad things about as it were your internationalism. The bad thing about christian internationalism is it can very easily um uh sit alongside the desire for empire so the idea of converting the world and empire and the say the british empire.

Those two things were. Were they cooperated with each other. Um so that that's part of the problem. I love you i love everybody. You will all think exactly as i do now. That's a dangerous that's a dangerous part of christianity.

You know i embrace you all but what i'm really asking you to do is to think like me. Okay now that's that's the that's you know. I i i take you seriously. I want you to believe what i do. But there's a there is a sort of like a there is a.

Dangerous quality to that. So christian nationalism um is heavily criticized right now as being a problem. It's dangerous. Uh it leads to all sorts of trouble. But now i'm supposed to understand that christian internationalism is also very dangerous and is a problem.

Like where where do we go from here. Uh i i think fraser should just slow down and choose his words a bit more carefully because he's he's speaking about concepts in a misleading way. Christianity is not the issue that he's pointing out or that he thinks is the issue the the issue is the marriage of certain church leaders with imperial power in history.

That's what the issue is. Christianity doesn't have anything to do with that jesus didn't say to work together with the roman government in order to go make disciples. He just said go make more disciples.

When church leaders in the past have done this kind of thing i would argue they have stepped outside the parameters of the biblical injunction and need to return to it. Because christianity teaches and reinforces an inverted power structure the last shall be first and the first shall be last.

In order to be jesus disciple you must become a servant. Jesus said that the son of man did not come to be served but to serve others. And that ethic is expected in all of jesus followers. Whether you're a pastor you're a shepherd you're a deacon you're a congregant whatever.

So christianity is not the problem. It's those who purport to speak and act in the name of christ but don't actually obey what he said to do. Those folks i think are who fraser takes issue with here. On the flip side there is.

A different sort of dangerous quality. It's not as dangerous actually as christianity but there's a sort of like um you can get with judaism you can get a sort of like where this is this is us this is what we think.

We don't want to convert you. We're not that bothered about what you think that that's not totally true. Because it shouldn't be true because um one of the things that's there from abraham through isaiah and so forth is that the jewish people who are chosen by god are also chosen are also a blessing to the gentiles to the nations to all of us.

And so you know that there is a there is a there is an obligation on jews to explain and to model how they are also a blessing to the world. Um but nonetheless there is a very very different sort of experience.