Rabbi Jonathan Cahn admits: Christianity was created by the Jews as a "Spiritual Weapon against Rome".
One could say that Christianity represents one of the earliest psyops and at the same time one of the most successful and sustainable ones.
Like a Trojan horse, the faith spread throughout the entire Roman Empire, until it eventually became one of the most powerful and influential religions in the world. Over the centuries, it shaped the mindsets, cultures, and social structures of billions of people.
The pagans represented the greatest danger to the Jews, militarily superior, politically dominant, and uncontrollable. So the Jews made them controllable through theological warfare. By accepting Christianity, the pagans automatically adopted the entire Jewish framing and the Abrahamic worldview. The once uncontrollable enemy suddenly thought in the same categories as his former enemies. It's no coincidence that it's called Judeo-Christian, meaning Jewish-Christian.
Thus, the Jews succeeded through theological-psychological warfare in converting large parts of the pagan world to a belief system whose roots lie deep in the Jewish context. They ultimately managed to get the Romans, who were their greatest enemies and pagans, to convert to a faith that served them and their agenda. The control was not achieved through weapons, but through the adoption of the Jewish worldview, and precisely because of this, the pagans, who once represented the greatest threat, became predictable, malleable, and controllable.
If this was even just a tiny bit remotely true, then Christianity would be taught everywhere and never questioned or allowed to be questioned (just like a certain event, for instance). Islam would have been destroyed hundreds of years ago as well, to make sure all their neighbours behave and protects the country of Israel under any circumstance.
Rabbi Jonathan Cahn admits:
The most likely reason behind this, is that he's a little smarter than the others, and just doing some reverse psychological trick. "Those antisemite guys always do the opposite of what we want, so I'll tell them to become Christian, so that they stray away from Jesus"
Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago. They simply saw no reason (or found it too difficult) to remove it afterward, but it does not necessarily mean that it is still fulfilling some kind of function for them.
Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prima facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system(s) to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming long ago against the Roman Empire, a history either forgotten or suppressed, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'
This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.
One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' subversive belief system - a grand narrative of all history that deeply affects economics, politics, and society - that is indubitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.
The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems, thin in the sense that it is modular and could be bolted on to almost any political culture, ideology, or system. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated. Holocaustianity does to the atheist what Pentecostal, dispensationalist Christianity does to the Christian: it makes him feel it is somehow 'wrong' to oppose the yids on anything at all.
Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond:
And you would be wrong. Adam argues that the Jews who attack Christianity are doing it to drive (anti-semitic) people back to Christianity as it is essentially Judaism for gentiles. Also the attacks on Christianity serve as a humiliation ritual.
That's even more bizarre and conspiratorial than I thought he would believe.
If yids attack Christianity to drive the small number of 'anti-semites' back to this 'Judaism for gentiles', how do they ensure that they do not drive far larger numbers of Christians away from this Judaism for gentiles altogether by means of the same arguments? 'Christianity bad' isn't an argument that only works on anti-semites.
The maths don't add up to me. Yes, you contain and neuter anti-semites by shunting them into a false oppositional belief system, but they're so miniscule in number as to be irrelevant. By contrast, if you peddle narratives like 'Christianity is bad' or 'Christianity is anti-Semitic' in order to get anti-semites to greater support it, you also risk losing the much larger number of people who also accept your arguments for why it is bad without being anti-semites, or who find anti-semitism repellant, respectively, who will drift from this Judaism for gentiles to other non-controlled opposition belief systems or atheism.
Furthermore, if the goal really was to simply corral and neuter anti-semites, why not simply argue 'Christianity is based and anti-semitic, so you should support it to oppose yids' rather than 'Christianity is bad, so you should support it because the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Seems like an inferior, weaker strategy to me. Associating Christianity with the Nazis is a much better way of getting anti-semites on board than simply arguing 'Christianity bad, and don't you know that what we say is bad is what you should say is good?'
Moreover, how does one explain yids like Johnathan Cahn who clearly promote certain types of Christianity whilst the others are attacking it? So some yids attack Christianity to drive anti-semites to it whilst other yids simultaneously promote Christianity (Pentecostal, dispensationalist versions of it) to create philo-semites? Seems schizophrenic to me, since one side is doing something counter-productive to the other: the likes of Johnathan Cahn are obviously grossly repellant to anti-semites.
I should add that I haven't paid much attention to Adam Green outside of his interviews with the intriguing David Skrbina. (This kind of thing is probably part of why.) Consequently, I apologize if this argument is not of the kind that Green or his supporters would make (although it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the claim that some yids attack Christianity to corral and neuter anti-semites whilst others like Johnathan Cahn simultaneously [and counter-productively, insofar as this specific goal is concerned] promote Christianity in a way that will drive anti-semites far, far away from Christianity).
Rabbi Jonathan Cahn admits: Christianity was created by the Jews as a "Spiritual Weapon against Rome".
One could say that Christianity represents one of the earliest psyops and at the same time one of the most successful and sustainable ones.
Like a Trojan horse, the faith spread throughout the entire Roman Empire, until it eventually became one of the most powerful and influential religions in the world. Over the centuries, it shaped the mindsets, cultures, and social structures of billions of people.
The pagans represented the greatest danger to the Jews, militarily superior, politically dominant, and uncontrollable. So the Jews made them controllable through theological warfare. By accepting Christianity, the pagans automatically adopted the entire Jewish framing and the Abrahamic worldview. The once uncontrollable enemy suddenly thought in the same categories as his former enemies. It's no coincidence that it's called Judeo-Christian, meaning Jewish-Christian.
Thus, the Jews succeeded through theological-psychological warfare in converting large parts of the pagan world to a belief system whose roots lie deep in the Jewish context. They ultimately managed to get the Romans, who were their greatest enemies and pagans, to convert to a faith that served them and their agenda. The control was not achieved through weapons, but through the adoption of the Jewish worldview, and precisely because of this, the pagans, who once represented the greatest threat, became predictable, malleable, and controllable.
If this was even just a tiny bit remotely true, then Christianity would be taught everywhere and never questioned or allowed to be questioned (just like a certain event, for instance). Islam would have been destroyed hundreds of years ago as well, to make sure all their neighbours behave and protects the country of Israel under any circumstance.
The most likely reason behind this, is that he's a little smarter than the others, and just doing some reverse psychological trick. "Those antisemite guys always do the opposite of what we want, so I'll tell them to become Christian, so that they stray away from Jesus"
Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago. They simply saw no reason (or found it too difficult) to remove it afterward, but it does not necessarily mean that it is still fulfilling some kind of function for them.
Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prima facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system(s) to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming long ago against the Roman Empire, a history either forgotten or suppressed, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'
This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.
One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' subversive belief system - a grand narrative of all history that deeply affects economics, politics, and society - that is indubitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.
The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems, thin in the sense that it is modular and could be bolted on to almost any political culture, ideology, or system. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated. Holocaustianity does to the atheist what Pentecostal, dispensationalist Christianity does to the Christian: it makes him feel it is somehow 'wrong' to oppose the yids on anything at all.
And you would be wrong. Adam argues that the Jews who attack Christianity are doing it to drive (anti-semitic) people back to Christianity as it is essentially Judaism for gentiles. Also the attacks on Christianity serve as a humiliation ritual.
That's even more bizarre and conspiratorial than I thought he would believe.
If yids attack Christianity to drive the small number of 'anti-semites' back to this 'Judaism for gentiles', how do they ensure that they do not drive far larger numbers of Christians away from this Judaism for gentiles altogether by means of the same arguments? 'Christianity bad' isn't an argument that only works on anti-semites.
The maths don't add up to me. Yes, you contain and neuter anti-semites by shunting them into a false oppositional belief system, but they're so miniscule in number as to be irrelevant. By contrast, if you peddle narratives like 'Christianity is bad' or 'Christianity is anti-Semitic' in order to get anti-semites to greater support it, you also risk losing the much larger number of people who also accept your arguments for why it is bad without being anti-semites, or who find anti-semitism repellant, respectively, who will drift from this Judaism for gentiles to other non-controlled opposition belief systems or atheism.
Furthermore, if the goal really was to simply corral and neuter anti-semites, why not simply argue 'Christianity is based and anti-semitic, so you should support it to oppose yids' rather than 'Christianity is bad, so you should support it because the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Seems like an inferior, weaker strategy to me. Associating Christianity with the Nazis is a much better way of getting anti-semites on board than simply arguing 'Christianity bad, and don't you know that what we say is bad is what you should say is good?'
Moreover, how does one explain yids like Johnathan Cahn who clearly promote certain types of Christianity whilst the others are attacking it? So some yids attack Christianity to drive anti-semites to it whilst other yids simultaneously promote Christianity (Pentecostal, dispensationalist versions of it) to create philo-semites? Seems schizophrenic to me, since one side is doing something counter-productive to the other: the likes of Johnathan Cahn are obviously grossly repellant to anti-semites.
I should add that I haven't paid much attention to Adam Green outside of his interviews with the intriguing David Skrbina. (This kind of thing is probably part of why.) Consequently, I apologize if this argument is not of the kind that Green or his supporters would make (although it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the claim that some yids attack Christianity to corral and neuter anti-semites whilst others like Johnathan Cahn simultaneously [and counter-productively, insofar as this specific goal is concerned] promote Christianity in a way that will drive anti-semites far, far away from Christianity).
Totally ignoring the fact that Rome existed as a Christian empire from 306AD to 1453.