Disclaimer: I had started planning this post in January of 2023. However, various personal commitments prevented me from finishing what I had started over the past few or so months. Apologies for the delay in posting.
Back in September 2022, I made a post on a Crucible debate between Adam Green and David Patrick Harry. In the time between then and now, Adam got into another debate with one Peter Branscombe, in episode #118 of the Super Conspiracy Thusday Podcast (19 Jan. 2023). The full episode may be found on the websites YouTube and Rumble.
While Adam’s debate with David last year focused on the truth of Christianity in general, this debate was focused specifically on Adam’s claim that Christianity is a Jewish conspiracy. This claim of Adam’s is only really commonplace in dissident right circles and is far from mainstream among critics of Christianity. I figure that it’s unique enough for me to discuss because, though few people make this claim, the ones who (like Adam) do are zealous in promoting it.
The Debate
Although the full video is two and a half hours long, the actual debate only starts over an hour into the video (YT timestamp 1:10:00). It begins with Peter joining the call, while Adam already joined earlier.
Israel and the OT
I feel as though, to give context for the debate, I should skip ahead to something closer to the end of the video. Adam gives a brief explanation of what the core of his whole argument is and why he thinks Christianity is a Jewish plot. So, then, what is the “crux of the issue” to Adam?
Adam: I think this is the crux of the issue, though, okay? The prophecies of the Old Testament would be that the nations would bow before their Moshiach, that they would reject and be blinded too for a time, but then they’d realize “okay, he did spread the Torah all over the world,” and make a couple of tweaks and then maybe they can acknowledge him in some way and have some Esau-Jacob reconciliation. But the idea that they wanted the gentiles to worship their Messiah and that now — this was before Christianity — and that now you do worship their Messiah. Don’t you see how you’re falling into exactly what they wanted to begin with?
Starts at YT timestamp 2:05:54 and at 2:07:12.
(. . .)
Adam: But still, nonetheless, in the big picture, he’s the King of the Jews. He came to the Jews, he can’t— If he wasn’t rejected by the Jews, he couldn’t be the King of the Jews. But the bottom line is that he’s the King of the Jews, the Torah Messiah. They wanted the Gentiles to worship him and now you do. So they accomplished their goal by you believing in their god and their Messiah. You’re giving them that.
Now that I’ve let Adam explain his view in his own words, the rest of the article will have the needed context.
Skipping back near the start of the debate, one of the first points discussed in the debate is the Jewish association of Esau/Edom with Rome, Europe, and Christianity. (For those unfamiliar with the topic, I would point them to the article “Esau the Ancestor of Rome” by Dr. Malka Z. Simkovich.) This Jewish theological concept is a crucial part of Adam’s claims about Christianity. Therefore, things get interesting when Peter challenges Adam on that concept:
Adam: This is a big theme of them using Esau. Esau serves his brother Jacob with the sword, and they used Rome to spread the Torah around the world and do their dirty work for them; and then it says Esau will subjugate the world, but in the end, Jacob will basically take it from Esau; and that’s when Edom and Christendom is destroyed as we know it.
Starts at YT timestamp 1:14:53.
Peter: The thing is, that’s a — I’m gonna say it — but that’s a Jewish interpretation from the oral traditions and from the Talmud about the Jacob and Esau thing.
Adam: No, it’s all over the—
Peter: No, no, you’ve just told— Yeah, yeah, I know, but I’m saying their interpretation. Because, in the story of Jacob and Esau, Esau gets a blessing. He says that, uh, Jacob— uh, Isaac tells him that he’s going to live by the sword; but he says that one day, he’s gonna throw off the yoke of his brother, right.
Adam: The yoke. Yeah.
Peter: So, where does that come into play?
Adam: You know, that’s a good question, and I don’t recall off the top of my head what rabbis say about that verse.
Following this, Peter responds to one of Adam’s arguments. He argues that a great many Jews today don’t really believe in the Old Testament to begin with. There is a little back-and-fourth until the topic moves back to Esau in scripture.
The following interaction stuck out to me, despite how brief it is:
Adam: How does Esau die?
Starts at YT timestamp 1:18:21.
Peter: In the Bible, they’re given— the Edomites are given Mount Seir. I can’t remember where he dies, if he dies in Mount Seir or not.
Adam: He comes to the grave of— when Jacob’s dead. I think (…) that part’s right. But for sure he’s beheaded by Jacob’s descendents. (…) onto Jacob’s grave.
Peter: No, let’s just stop right there, just one second. I’m just gonna interject right here- that’s not in the Old Testament. You’ll find that somewhere else, but you’re not gonna find it in the Old Testament.
Peter here is correct in pointing this out: the story of Esau being beheaded does not come from the Old Testament. In fact, there is no biblical account of Esau’s death (c.f. Gen. 36.1). It comes from the Babylonian Talmud, which was written a few centuries after even the New Testament, specifically in a section of Sotah 13a.
This little incident reflects a consistent flaw in Adam’s logic in analyzing Christianity: namely, that he prioritizes the perspective of Judaism. Back in the Sept. 2022 debate I covered back then, I had mentioned a caller with the screen name ‘OG Snoop’ who pointed out this flaw; I had also mentioned how (in that debate) Adam affirmed the Jewish doctrine of the “Oral Torah.”
Adam argues that the Messiah of Christianity is the Messiah of Judaism, who will subjugate and destroy the gentiles on Jewry’s behalf. But in order for this understanding to make sense, he must assume that the Jewish interpretation of certain OT passages is the “correct” reading. A very good example is this very discussion about Jacob and Esau; nowhere in the Bible is Esau ever identified with Romans, or Europeans, or Christians. But because Esau is identified as such in Jewish traditions of men, Adam reads the Bible through their lens, occasionally (see supplement #3) twisting scripture to support it.
Messiah and Antichrist
This can be seen in the part just following the above one, in which Adam Green begins talking about the goal of the Messiah. He takes what later Jewish writers say almost as fact, and more or less treats assorted rabbinic opinions as the de facto “correct” readings of scripture. As seen below, Adam reads Isaiah 63.1‘s mention of one coming from “Edom” as meaning that the Messiah will destroy those of European stock like Peter.
Adam: I agree, yeah, it’ll be Moshiach ben David.
Starts at YT timestamp 1:22:54.
Peter: Yeah, the Antichrist.
Adam: … In Isaiah 63, it talks about the Messiah that will come out of Edom, and will… will destroy Edom, and his robe will be bloody. You don’t think that’s the— I mean, it’s not whether you think it; that is the character of the prophecies of the Messiah. What the Messiah is supposed to do [is] destroy Edom, destroy the nations, smite the nations— is gonna be the ones losing in the end. (…) Instead of helping me condemn the Torah, and condemn the God of Israel, and condemn the notion that you want a Hebrew Torah Line-of-David Messiah to rule the whole world, you’re basically—
Peter: No, that’s—
Adam: You’re just like the rabbis, in my opinion, that you want the Hebrew Messiah to rule the whole world. You’re the New World Order; you want a one world religion, with the whole world on their knees like slaves worshipping the God of Israel that chose them— (…)
I find this comparison by Adam, of the Christian Messianic Kingdom with the Antichrist’s New World Order, to be an interesting one worth addressing. Unfortunately, Peter does not give too much of a response in the debate; therefore, I’ll touch on it a bit in my own words.
Ignoring similarities between Adam’s own views and the NWO (see supplement #1), there are quite a few crucial differences between the future kingdom of Christ and the one world government of the Antichrist (apart from the obvious difference of the Antichrist being opposed to the reign of Christ). To start, the Antichrist will attempt to abolish laws and ordinances, hence why he is called “man of lawlessness” and “son of destruction” (II Th. 2.3); this is limited not only to the laws of states but will extend, as much as possible, even to the ways God ordered creation. His reign will be “different from all the kingdoms” (Dan. 7.23). We know that the Antichrist will attempt to merge all the nations together under one authority (Rev. 17.17; Dan. 2.42-43), akin to the Tower of Babel when they were merged together into one nation (Gen. 11.6). Christ’s kingdom, meanwhile, will have nations, though subject to one Lord, still distinct (Rev. 7.9; 21.24). The Antichrist will see fit to “change times and laws” (Dan. 7.25), meaning he will attempt to replace what God has put in place from ancient times.
Furthermore, the one world religion of the Antichrist will be a new religion unlike one seen before. The man of lawlessness will declare himself God (II Th. 2.4), and his religion will revere neither YHWH nor the old pagan pantheons (Dan. 11.36-38). Such a religion would not be Christianity, since Christianity has been around for generations before his time. It will be a totalitarian regime (Rev. 13.15-17) unlike any other.
There is, admittedly, a kernel of truth to what Adam is saying. There’s an old Latin saying, “diabolus simia Dei” (“the devil is the ape of God”), meaning that Satan only crudely imitates God’s works. The Antichrist is bound to mirror Christ in some ways. But make no mistake; the Antichrist’s kingdom is a twisted parody of Christ’s own, and the similarities it has only amount to mere perversions.
Several minutes later, Peter points out that the kingdoms of Christ and Antichrist are not to be equated:
Peter: He’s [Jesus is] gonna come back and-
Starts at YT timestamp 2:17:57.
Adam: And conquer all the world, which is exactly what the rabbis want!
Peter: [uninteligable] the Antichrist and the false prophet to the lake of fire, yes. And he’s gonna break the spell that’s that’s over the whole world right now. Yes, he’s gonna destroy all that.
Everything that they’re working towards, he’s going to destroy, right? And you know what? I’m not waiting, ’cause I’m like “Ooh, oh no,” right? I’m going to be fighting against that [Antichrist] system the entire time, right? Right to the very end. I have a wife and I have children. Do you think that I want that [the Antichrist’s reign] to take place?
On Hope
Closer to the end of the debate, Adam makes quite an interesting remark:
Adam: And Israel, very clearly in Romans, in that verse that Hagee was citing, where it says, “and so Israel-” “and so all of Israel will be saved, as it is written,” he very clearly identifies Israel as the Jews that are hardened to Jesus. So he’s saying, all of them will be saved in the end. The Gentiles will be destroyed, and they’ll be saved. We lose in the end! And they’re the ones that originated all of this script.
Starts at YT timestamp 2:16:35. Underlining by me.
(The verse he’s citing is Rom. 11.26.)
“We lose in the end” is quite the statement from Adam! A few minutes after this, Peter gives a fitting response to another similar statement of Adam’s:
Peter: So what’s the good thing that happens then, Adam? What do we do?
Starts at YT timestamp 2:19:46.
What do we- What do we do? What’s the answer here?
Adam: Stop participating and dancing along to the Judeo tune. Stop playing the useful- the controlled opposition Esau role, as the, um, Judaism for the Gentiles.
Peter: … Yeah, but I’m not.
Unfortunately, the host started to move to the debate’s closure before this point could be discussed further.
I do wish that this particular question could have been talked about in more detail, because I think it’s actually an important question to ask here. Adam spends a lot of time railing against Christianity, but if Christianity isn’t the answer, one can only ask what the ‘true’ answer is. Adam seems to shy away from what he thinks people should be following instead of Christianity.
It also highights what I think is a major flaw in Adam’s whole argument about a Jewish conspiracy: namely that, by taking Jewish claims about themselves and their history for granted, Adam comes to think that the Jews are a much more powerful threat than they really are.
Think about it: if the Jews truly did manipulate the Gentile world for around 2,000 years straight, and if they truly have been building up to the destruction of all the nations for so long, and if this truly has been their plan since the very beginning, then what purpose is there in resisting? Adam seems to have built up a sort of invincible foe. It’s like a sort of “reverse QAnon” in which the opposition is made out to have an unstoppable plan.
However, the Jewish claims upon which Adam’s argument replies are shaky foundations. Many on the dissident right treat the claims of Afrocentrists, especially when they say Africans were supposedly the makers of European civilization, with such mockery that it’s become a meme (see “WE WUZ KINGS” on KnowYourMeme). But what about Judaism’s truth-claims? I’ve noticed that many on the dissident right are more willing to take Jews seriously in this regard. For instance, Adam takes a Jewish fable about Simon Peter being a Tosaphist very seriously (see supplement #2), despite this claim being completely ahistorical. Adam focuses a great deal on what Jewish tradition claims, but rarely evaluates it’s truthfulness.
Pre-Debate and Misc.
There are a few things not directly related to the debate that I felt like covering here.
In terms of things relating to Adam that were not in the actual video, see my “Suppliments“ post. I occasionally checked the KnowMoreNews Twitter page in my time preparing this post, so sometimes I found something that might be relevant but wouldn’t fit in this post.
Now, in terms of things relating to the video itself:
Adam Pre-Debate
In the pre-debate section of the video, the host asks Adam one very interesting and relevant question:
East Coast Canadian: But if we go back, before this alleged psyop of Christianity, before that. The Old Testament. Do you think that the certain portion of the Jewish cult here created the Torah themselves?
Starts at YT timestamp 0:53:45.
Adam: I mean, it was created over many hundreds of years, and it was changed. And we don’t even know, like- there’s different versions going back to just like the, uh, eleventh century. So- And they don’t match up, ancient scriptures don’t match up perfectly, like with what they found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. But, like-
Here’s a more interesting question, or kinda what’s on my- not a more interesting question-
Like, the idea that, did they know of the conspiracy when they were writing down the Torah? Were they hiding this plan in the blueprints? And I think it could be a little bit of that, and just after the fact- you know, religious people reading the Bible and, like, finding Bible codes…
He then goes on to elaborate more on this point, about how much of Jewish readings of the Torah may be after-the-fact interpretations.
I find this to be a tremendously interesting thing to admit. Because in the actual debate, as I discussed earlier, Adam believes that the “crux of the issue” of why he considers Christianity a Jewish conspiracy is:
- The Jews, in their Hebrew Bible, state their goal is to get all of the Gentiles to worship and serve their God.
- Christians worship the deity described in the Hebrew Bible.
However, if the Hebrew Bible was not authored with the intent of being a blueprint for some Jewish plot, then the above-listed point #1 is untrue, thus making #2 irrelevant.
I would say that the Hebrew Bible is in fact not any kind of conspiratorial blueprint. When you cut out the various stories, poems, and laws from the Old Testament (which is to say, when you cut out the bulk of the Old Testament), the only room for a writer to lay out a plan for a conspiracy is in the prophetic books. Meanwhile, the prophetic books themselves mostly consist of calls to repentance, describing a blessed future if Israel does what is just and an accursed future if Israel is unjust. This is never described as something that Israel itself was planning to enact on their own.
During the time that the Hebrew Bible was being written, the typical ancient Israelite would most likely have no knowledge of Rome, and would be unlikely to care much for the affairs of Europe. When approached from a secular perspective, there is simply no reason to assume that the Hebrew Bible is describing a plan to subjugate Europe; that is something that would need to be read into the text via eisegesis.
A Point of Peter’s
Now, at some points in the video, Peter seems to defend a view similar to British Israelism and Christian Identity, which believe the peoples of Europe are the true blood descendants of the ancient Israelites. I do remember at one point where he references the Phoenicians intermarrying with the Israelites and then colonizing parts of Europe.
Though it is not impossible in my opinion for Europeans to be descended in part from Israel, I do find the idea of Europeans being the true Israelites of blood to be hard to believe. I haven’t found much convincing evidence of it.
Furthermore, I happen to think that using British Israelism as a retort to the idea of Christianity being exclusively “Jewish” to be unnecessary. The reason I say so is because the Bible itself makes it clear that being a blood-descendant of Israel is not needed to be among God’s chosen people (see #1 and #2 of my PATOT series).
My Conclusion
The reason why I bothered to write a post about Adam Green and his claims, is that his arguments are rarely given a Christian response to. I can understand why, given that these particular anti-Christian arguments movement are limited to a fringe on the dissident right.
Following this particular debate, Adam has been involved in a couple of other debates on this topic. These include one against Stuart Knechtle on Modern-Day Debate (11 Mar. 2023 | YouTube | Twitter), and another against Pinesap on Ethan Ralph’s Killstream (10 Jun. 2023 | Rumble | Twitter). As of me writing this (which is June 2023), I have yet to watch these debates.
However, should I watch them, I do not plan to write in-depth analyses of them like I did here. I figure that I should not make tons of posts going into detail about the opinions of one critic of Christianity. There are many critics of Christianity in the world, after all. That’s why I will also take a break from debate reviews in general.
In the future, I will probably just write more general posts addressing individual arguments raised by multiple different people. I’ll probably only go through one person’s set of arguments if said arguments are representative of something larger.
Now, I must give Adam credit for something: doing research to properly address his arguments has led me down an interesting rabbit-hole of sorts. The history of Jewish-Christian relations in the ancient world is a fascinating one that I will likely post more about in the future. I don’t think that many people — be they Jews, Christians, or people like Adam — entirely realize just how much the rise of the Church changed the history of the Synagogue forever. Frankly, the idea of an ancient conspiracy almost seems boring in comparison.
Nikaea 325 
