Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Why did the bible forbid the consumption of pork prior to the New Covenant?
After looking into pork based parasites, it makes sense why pork was forbidden in the bible, because there's much more species of pork tapeworm than for any other animal.
https://youtu.be/l403_H3yOyw
There is tapeworms identical and specific for beef, chicken, etc but no where near as many, and as common; and pork is especially protective of the parasite as pork muscle is very dense, which makes it easier for tapeworms to survive cooking, if not done right.
The issue with pork tapeworms is that they like to get into your brain, eat and build burrows for their larve. When this occurs, the persons behaviour typically changes drastically, from hallucinations, mood swings, losing grasp on reality, violence, self-harm etc. It's actually incredibly bad.
However you need not worry about this today, as it was only commonplace in antiquity due to lower hygiene, sanitary and farming standards. Today in the US, between 2008 and 2020, only 15 cases of this occured, and all fully recovered.
Although, knowing how pork tapeworms affect a person mentally, is this what was mistaken for "possession" in the past? Or does this have anything to do with Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac? (
Did Jesus exorcise severe brain embedded tapeworms? The man was in the vinicity of large pig herds, it's likely he could have got it from the meat, and is this why the herd was killed off?
Keep in mind, narratives from the New Testament are often spoken in allegories and metaphors. Representing tapeworms as demons could be to show what they cause you to do when they burrow and their larve feast.
Jesus regardless performed a miracle by healing the man and removing those tapeworms which had infested the mans mind so much so that the man was slicing himself up with stones because he was so mentally damaged.
This would ultimately explain why Jesus felt it necessary to slaughter an entire pig herd because of it, to rid the region of the source of their afflictions.
After looking into pork based parasites, it makes sense why pork was forbidden in the bible, because there's much more species of pork tapeworm than for any other animal.
https://youtu.be/l403_H3yOyw
There is tapeworms identical and specific for beef, chicken, etc but no where near as many, and as common; and pork is especially protective of the parasite as pork muscle is very dense, which makes it easier for tapeworms to survive cooking, if not done right.
The issue with pork tapeworms is that they like to get into your brain, eat and build burrows for their larve. When this occurs, the persons behaviour typically changes drastically, from hallucinations, mood swings, losing grasp on reality, violence, self-harm etc. It's actually incredibly bad.
However you need not worry about this today, as it was only commonplace in antiquity due to lower hygiene, sanitary and farming standards. Today in the US, between 2008 and 2020, only 15 cases of this occured, and all fully recovered.
Although, knowing how pork tapeworms affect a person mentally, is this what was mistaken for "possession" in the past? Or does this have anything to do with Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac? (
Mark 5:1-20; Matthew 8:28-34; Luke 8:26-39) Where Jesus exorcises a demon/s out of a man and into a herd of swine, causing the swine to run down a hill into a lake and drown themselves.Did Jesus exorcise severe brain embedded tapeworms? The man was in the vinicity of large pig herds, it's likely he could have got it from the meat, and is this why the herd was killed off?
Keep in mind, narratives from the New Testament are often spoken in allegories and metaphors. Representing tapeworms as demons could be to show what they cause you to do when they burrow and their larve feast.
Jesus regardless performed a miracle by healing the man and removing those tapeworms which had infested the mans mind so much so that the man was slicing himself up with stones because he was so mentally damaged.
This would ultimately explain why Jesus felt it necessary to slaughter an entire pig herd because of it, to rid the region of the source of their afflictions.
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Were Romans more advanced than most medieval kingdoms? (Christian Kingdoms)
No.
Were the Dark Ages the result of Christianity?
No, in fact, Christianity brought Europe out of it.
The Romans were advanced for their time, but they were superseded by the 11th century. The reason is economy. And Imperial Rome sucked on economy. I mean, like a vacuum cleaner sucks.
The Roman Empire reached its pinnacle on economy during the reign of Five Good Emperors (from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius). The problem is that the Roman economy was basically a Raubwirtschaft - rapine economy: it was based on conquest, loot, plunder and slavery. Rome was doomed already at the start. Once the conquests ended, so did the cash flow. The result was at first deflation, which was then treated with inflation. And by 235 AD the Empire was bankrupt. Cue the Third Century Crisis and Empire breaking in three. The days of wine and roses were over long before Aurelianus stitched the Empire back together 278 AD.
True, Rome could field far larger armies than any Medieval kingdom, and it could build magnificient monumental buildings. Simply because Rome had free, easily coercible and easily floggable work force - slaves. Nothing is impossible in a slavery-based empire - as long as there is money.
And once the money runs out (as it historically did by AD 235) , the downhill begins. The only monumental building the Roman Empire did after AD 235 were the Aurelian Walls.
Slavery - the availability of gratis, easily coercible and easily floggable work force - stultified any technological advance in Rome. What’s the point of windmills when you have slaves to grind the quern-stones?
The Diocletian reforms saved the Eastern Empire, but the West was bankrupt. And when it was liquidated 476, the monetary economy had disappeared long ago and replaced by barter trade. The Dark Ages (476–800 AD) had begun.
The Dark Ages were “dark” because there are few literary documents surviving, and the reason is lack of writing medium. Papyrus trade collapsed, and papyrus rots away in the European climate. But the Dark Ages also saw spread of Christianity, abolition of slavery, centuries of technological innovation and foundation of Feudalism. They enabled the slow economic recovery.
By 800 AD the living standards in Europe had exceeded those of 476 AD (the collapse of the Western Empire). By 1000 AD they had exceeded those of the Five Good Emperors’ era. Yet the Eastern Roman Empire was the richest, strongest and most powerful state in Europe - and perhaps whole world - in 1000 AD.
Yes, Eastern Roman Empire survived - and thrived. Constantinople indeed was the second Rome. The Eastern Empire never collapsed; it was conquered from outside.
The High Middle Ages (1066 AD to 1356 AD) were centuries of innovation, growth, increase and economy. It is not wrong to say Capitalism was born during those centuries, and it made Europe rich. Paper was introduced, which meant spread of literacy like a wildfire.
Technology did now what slaves had done in the past. When labour is expensive and there are guilds, unions and stuff like that, price of labour becomes the scarcity factor, and you have an incentive to invent technology. And that made the Medieval kingdoms far more technologically and scientifically advanced than the Roman Empire.
What the Romans were good was jurisprudence. The Roman civil law is even today the basis of all European judicial systems with the notable exception of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law.
No.
Were the Dark Ages the result of Christianity?
No, in fact, Christianity brought Europe out of it.
___
The Romans were advanced for their time, but they were superseded by the 11th century. The reason is economy. And Imperial Rome sucked on economy. I mean, like a vacuum cleaner sucks.
The Roman Empire reached its pinnacle on economy during the reign of Five Good Emperors (from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius). The problem is that the Roman economy was basically a Raubwirtschaft - rapine economy: it was based on conquest, loot, plunder and slavery. Rome was doomed already at the start. Once the conquests ended, so did the cash flow. The result was at first deflation, which was then treated with inflation. And by 235 AD the Empire was bankrupt. Cue the Third Century Crisis and Empire breaking in three. The days of wine and roses were over long before Aurelianus stitched the Empire back together 278 AD.
True, Rome could field far larger armies than any Medieval kingdom, and it could build magnificient monumental buildings. Simply because Rome had free, easily coercible and easily floggable work force - slaves. Nothing is impossible in a slavery-based empire - as long as there is money.
And once the money runs out (as it historically did by AD 235) , the downhill begins. The only monumental building the Roman Empire did after AD 235 were the Aurelian Walls.
Slavery - the availability of gratis, easily coercible and easily floggable work force - stultified any technological advance in Rome. What’s the point of windmills when you have slaves to grind the quern-stones?
The Diocletian reforms saved the Eastern Empire, but the West was bankrupt. And when it was liquidated 476, the monetary economy had disappeared long ago and replaced by barter trade. The Dark Ages (476–800 AD) had begun.
The Dark Ages were “dark” because there are few literary documents surviving, and the reason is lack of writing medium. Papyrus trade collapsed, and papyrus rots away in the European climate. But the Dark Ages also saw spread of Christianity, abolition of slavery, centuries of technological innovation and foundation of Feudalism. They enabled the slow economic recovery.
By 800 AD the living standards in Europe had exceeded those of 476 AD (the collapse of the Western Empire). By 1000 AD they had exceeded those of the Five Good Emperors’ era. Yet the Eastern Roman Empire was the richest, strongest and most powerful state in Europe - and perhaps whole world - in 1000 AD.
Yes, Eastern Roman Empire survived - and thrived. Constantinople indeed was the second Rome. The Eastern Empire never collapsed; it was conquered from outside.
The High Middle Ages (1066 AD to 1356 AD) were centuries of innovation, growth, increase and economy. It is not wrong to say Capitalism was born during those centuries, and it made Europe rich. Paper was introduced, which meant spread of literacy like a wildfire.
Technology did now what slaves had done in the past. When labour is expensive and there are guilds, unions and stuff like that, price of labour becomes the scarcity factor, and you have an incentive to invent technology. And that made the Medieval kingdoms far more technologically and scientifically advanced than the Roman Empire.
What the Romans were good was jurisprudence. The Roman civil law is even today the basis of all European judicial systems with the notable exception of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law.
🔥2
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Is the idea of evolution and an old earth contradictory to the bible?
No, not at all however many will immediately claim the bible states everything was created in 1 week. But does it claim that?
The bible never says a week, it says it took 6 יוֹם for creation.
This word, transliterated as yom (H3117) while commonly associated with "day" is actually translated into a number of different lengths of time and words throughout the bible, including: "afternoon, age, always, battle, chronicle, continually, era, eternity, fate, forever, life, lifetime, period, perpetually, reign, time" and even "year" ironically.
The definition is "an unspecific length of time". The length of time is usually determined by the context. Genesis chapters 1-2 would likely be considered "era".
Let's go over creation while taking this into account.
Before creation — Genesis 1:1-2
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
First Era: Light — Genesis 1:3-5
“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light… …the first era”
Second Era: Firmament — Genesis 1:6-8
“Then God said, ‘Let there be a firmament…’ ...the second era”
Third Era: Earth, sea and vegetation — Genesis 1:9-13
“Then God said, ‘Let the waters… be gathered… let the dry land appear… Let the earth bring forth grass…’ …the third era”
Fourth Era: Sun, moon and stars — Genesis 1:14-19
“Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament… the fourth era”
Fifth Era: Birds and sea animals — Genesis 1:20-23
“Then God said, ‘Let the waters abound with… living creatures, and let birds fly…’ …the fifth era”
Sixth Era: Land animals and humans — Genesis 1:24-31
“Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature… Let Us make man… So God created man in His own image…” …the sixth era”
Seventh Era: The Sabbath — Genesis 2:1-3
“…And on the seventh era God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh era…”
Exodus 20:8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six eras the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh era. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
No, not at all however many will immediately claim the bible states everything was created in 1 week. But does it claim that?
The bible never says a week, it says it took 6 יוֹם for creation.
This word, transliterated as yom (H3117) while commonly associated with "day" is actually translated into a number of different lengths of time and words throughout the bible, including: "afternoon, age, always, battle, chronicle, continually, era, eternity, fate, forever, life, lifetime, period, perpetually, reign, time" and even "year" ironically.
The definition is "an unspecific length of time". The length of time is usually determined by the context. Genesis chapters 1-2 would likely be considered "era".
Let's go over creation while taking this into account.
Before creation — Genesis 1:1-2
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
First Era: Light — Genesis 1:3-5
“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light… …the first era”
Second Era: Firmament — Genesis 1:6-8
“Then God said, ‘Let there be a firmament…’ ...the second era”
Third Era: Earth, sea and vegetation — Genesis 1:9-13
“Then God said, ‘Let the waters… be gathered… let the dry land appear… Let the earth bring forth grass…’ …the third era”
Fourth Era: Sun, moon and stars — Genesis 1:14-19
“Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament… the fourth era”
Fifth Era: Birds and sea animals — Genesis 1:20-23
“Then God said, ‘Let the waters abound with… living creatures, and let birds fly…’ …the fifth era”
Sixth Era: Land animals and humans — Genesis 1:24-31
“Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature… Let Us make man… So God created man in His own image…” …the sixth era”
Seventh Era: The Sabbath — Genesis 2:1-3
“…And on the seventh era God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh era…”
Exodus 20:8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six eras the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh era. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
We have no need to deny science since it ultimately supports our point of view every time.
From pork-based tapeworm "Taenia solium" causing Neurocysticercosis, which exhibits itself as neuropsychiatric disorders which give the outward appearance of demonic possession, to poetic biblical language supporting evolution and billions of years old earth, the bible is always vindicate when science is applied.
The bible is absolute truth, infallible. There are no contradictions, paradoxes and nothing that contradictions observable truth (science).
Only men are fallible. If there is any of the above fallacies, either your interpretation is wrong or your understanding of science is wrong.
Christianity has never been a science denier, it was always the leader in scientific advancement.
Wherever Christianity spread, it would build hospitals, schools and universities; bringing education and literacy to the European masses.
From pork-based tapeworm "Taenia solium" causing Neurocysticercosis, which exhibits itself as neuropsychiatric disorders which give the outward appearance of demonic possession, to poetic biblical language supporting evolution and billions of years old earth, the bible is always vindicate when science is applied.
The bible is absolute truth, infallible. There are no contradictions, paradoxes and nothing that contradictions observable truth (science).
Only men are fallible. If there is any of the above fallacies, either your interpretation is wrong or your understanding of science is wrong.
Christianity has never been a science denier, it was always the leader in scientific advancement.
Wherever Christianity spread, it would build hospitals, schools and universities; bringing education and literacy to the European masses.
👏2
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
I think Christians should actually read the Bible for themselves and stop relying on some pansy behind a pulpit pandering for Jews. The Jews are an eternally cursed people according to the New Testament, there is no room for interpretation.
Matthew 27:24–25
So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying "I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves." And all the people answered, ((("His blood be on us and on our children!")))
Matthew 27:24–25
So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying "I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves." And all the people answered, ((("His blood be on us and on our children!")))
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Origin of the word "Arab".The word "Arab" has it's origins in the Hebrew language to refer mixed persons or races; or land inhabited by them.
Specifically Whites mixed with darker races, as the term means to darkened by admixture.
Hence Arabia is the land of the mixed multitude.
This term was adopted by those peoples as their own name, unknowingly to what it meant.
This would mean, any White person or race, darkened is by definition; an Arab. i.e. Mestizos
Source: Strongs Concordance 1890.
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Consubstantiation vs Transubstantiation.
What are they and which is true?
[Taken from the Christian Aryan Catechism]
Transubstantiation is a theological doctrine taught in the Catholic Church. It is the belief that during the Eucharist the bread and wine transform and literally become the actual flesh and blood of Christ. This has no basis in scripture and was first taught/ invented by the Catholic Church using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in ᴬᴰ1215.
Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine taught since the foundation of Christianity, that teaches that the substance of the bread and wine during the Eucharist coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist; that the bread and wine are symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ. Chapters 6 and 16 of the Gospel of John prove that Consubstantiation is authentic, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is figurative/ symbolic of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and not literal. While the Gospel of John doesn't record the Eucharist itself, it records the rest of Jesus Christ's last supper discourse afterward. In this discourse Jesus Christ states His comments during the supper were figurative [John 16:25] and His disciples also recognised it was figurative [John 16:29]. When Jesus Christ states those who eat and drink of the bread and wine, have life in Him [John 6:53-57], He states this is spiritual and not literal [John 6:63]. Here is where Jesus actually states the purpose of the Eucharist; communion with Jesus [John 6:56].
What are they and which is true?
[Taken from the Christian Aryan Catechism]
Transubstantiation is a theological doctrine taught in the Catholic Church. It is the belief that during the Eucharist the bread and wine transform and literally become the actual flesh and blood of Christ. This has no basis in scripture and was first taught/ invented by the Catholic Church using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in ᴬᴰ1215.
Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine taught since the foundation of Christianity, that teaches that the substance of the bread and wine during the Eucharist coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist; that the bread and wine are symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ. Chapters 6 and 16 of the Gospel of John prove that Consubstantiation is authentic, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is figurative/ symbolic of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and not literal. While the Gospel of John doesn't record the Eucharist itself, it records the rest of Jesus Christ's last supper discourse afterward. In this discourse Jesus Christ states His comments during the supper were figurative [John 16:25] and His disciples also recognised it was figurative [John 16:29]. When Jesus Christ states those who eat and drink of the bread and wine, have life in Him [John 6:53-57], He states this is spiritual and not literal [John 6:63]. Here is where Jesus actually states the purpose of the Eucharist; communion with Jesus [John 6:56].
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
The Real Presence of Christ during the Eucharist.
(Post edited for expanded information)
[Taken from the Christian Aryan Catechism]
Transubstantiation:
during the Eucharist the bread and wine transform and literally become the actual flesh and blood of Christ.
Origin: was first taught/ invented by the Catholic Church using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in ᴬᴰ1215.
Consubstantiation:
during the Eucharist the substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside (coexists with) the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.
Origin: part of the doctrines of Lollardy (14th century AD England).
Sacramental Union:
during the Eucharist the bread and wine are united with the flesh and blood of Christ. That the bread and wine are literally the actual flesh and blood of Christ.
Origin: Martin Luther in his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ's Supper.
Spiritual Presence:
during the Eucharist, the reality of Christ's body and blood do not come corporally (physically) to the bread and wine, but that "the Spirit truly unites things separated in space".
Origin: John Calvin
Memorialism:
during the Eucharist the bread and wine are symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ. That the Eucharist is a memorial of the Last Supper.
Origin: The Bible and Early Church.
Memorialism is the true theological doctrine regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; taught by the Early Church and revived by Huldrych Zwingli. It holds that during the Eucharist, the bread and wine are symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ; and the Eucharist is performed in "remembrance" of Him without transformation or any physical presence. Christ is however really present during the Eucharist through His omnipresence, not the performance itself.
The Eucharist is performed in a sacramental and spiritual manner in which the physical objects and actions are the spiritual reminder of what Jesus had done and what He had instituted.
This comes from the the historical understanding of the Early Church which taught that sacraments are done in "contemplation of faith" as the "proclamation of salvation and the strengthening of faith in the hearts of believers".
The Eucharist is signifying the body and blood of Jesus, as a memorial of the Last Supper and the Passion with symbolic and meaningful elements, which is done by the ordinance of Jesus.
Chapters 6 and 16 of the Gospel of John prove that Memorialism is authentic, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is figurative/ symbolic of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and not literal. While the Gospel of John doesn't record the Eucharist itself, it records the rest of Jesus Christ's last supper discourse afterward.
In this discourse Jesus Christ states His comments during the supper were figurative [John 16:25] and His disciples also recognised it was figurative [John 16:29].
When Jesus Christ states those who eat and drink of the bread and wine, have life in Him [John 6:53-57], He states this is spiritual and not literal [John 6:63]. Here is where Jesus actually states the purpose of the Eucharist; communion with Jesus [John 6:56].
(Post edited for expanded information)
[Taken from the Christian Aryan Catechism]
Transubstantiation:
during the Eucharist the bread and wine transform and literally become the actual flesh and blood of Christ.
Origin: was first taught/ invented by the Catholic Church using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in ᴬᴰ1215.
Consubstantiation:
during the Eucharist the substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside (coexists with) the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.
Origin: part of the doctrines of Lollardy (14th century AD England).
Sacramental Union:
during the Eucharist the bread and wine are united with the flesh and blood of Christ. That the bread and wine are literally the actual flesh and blood of Christ.
Origin: Martin Luther in his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ's Supper.
Spiritual Presence:
during the Eucharist, the reality of Christ's body and blood do not come corporally (physically) to the bread and wine, but that "the Spirit truly unites things separated in space".
Origin: John Calvin
Memorialism:
during the Eucharist the bread and wine are symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ. That the Eucharist is a memorial of the Last Supper.
Origin: The Bible and Early Church.
-----Memorialism is the true theological doctrine regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; taught by the Early Church and revived by Huldrych Zwingli. It holds that during the Eucharist, the bread and wine are symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ; and the Eucharist is performed in "remembrance" of Him without transformation or any physical presence. Christ is however really present during the Eucharist through His omnipresence, not the performance itself.
The Eucharist is performed in a sacramental and spiritual manner in which the physical objects and actions are the spiritual reminder of what Jesus had done and what He had instituted.
This comes from the the historical understanding of the Early Church which taught that sacraments are done in "contemplation of faith" as the "proclamation of salvation and the strengthening of faith in the hearts of believers".
The Eucharist is signifying the body and blood of Jesus, as a memorial of the Last Supper and the Passion with symbolic and meaningful elements, which is done by the ordinance of Jesus.
Chapters 6 and 16 of the Gospel of John prove that Memorialism is authentic, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is figurative/ symbolic of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and not literal. While the Gospel of John doesn't record the Eucharist itself, it records the rest of Jesus Christ's last supper discourse afterward.
In this discourse Jesus Christ states His comments during the supper were figurative [John 16:25] and His disciples also recognised it was figurative [John 16:29].
When Jesus Christ states those who eat and drink of the bread and wine, have life in Him [John 6:53-57], He states this is spiritual and not literal [John 6:63]. Here is where Jesus actually states the purpose of the Eucharist; communion with Jesus [John 6:56].
❤1
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Strange that the Jewish-Roman War was only between Romans and (((Idumæans))) with not a single mention of Judahites nor Israelites in general. It's almost like.... Jews (Idumæans) and Israelites aren't the same people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Often I find people misusing and conflating differing terms without even understanding what kind of noun it is.
There's a common accusation that Jesus was a Jew/ Jewish, which is an erroneous conflation. A Jew is a pistonyn for those who practice the 4th century AD religion Rabbinical Judaism. Jesus Himself practiced the Israelic faith of the Old Testament which was not centred around Juda-.
As Judaism is mostly an ethno-religious faith, the pistonyn Jew is often used also as an ethnonyn which is where people confuse and conflate the pistonyn Jew with the ethnonyn Judahite and even the demonyn Judæan. These misconstrued connections are based on nothing more than "they sound similar and all start with the letter J".
A Judæan (demonyn) is an inhabitant of the Roman province Judæa; regardless of ethnicity and religion (inhabited by many different people).
Those who are referred to as Jews (pistonyn) today, were Idumæans (ethnonyn) living as Judæans (demonyn) at the time.
Even secular sources agree they were.
There's a common accusation that Jesus was a Jew/ Jewish, which is an erroneous conflation. A Jew is a pistonyn for those who practice the 4th century AD religion Rabbinical Judaism. Jesus Himself practiced the Israelic faith of the Old Testament which was not centred around Juda-.
As Judaism is mostly an ethno-religious faith, the pistonyn Jew is often used also as an ethnonyn which is where people confuse and conflate the pistonyn Jew with the ethnonyn Judahite and even the demonyn Judæan. These misconstrued connections are based on nothing more than "they sound similar and all start with the letter J".
A Judæan (demonyn) is an inhabitant of the Roman province Judæa; regardless of ethnicity and religion (inhabited by many different people).
Those who are referred to as Jews (pistonyn) today, were Idumæans (ethnonyn) living as Judæans (demonyn) at the time.
Even secular sources agree they were.
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
ca_solas_final.png
4.9 MB
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
New stickers on the Six Solas 😎 check them out!
https://t.iss.one/addstickers/chrary
https://t.iss.one/addstickers/chrary
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
What Makes A Saint?
In the Early Church (including Orthodoxy, and Catholicism until ᴬᴰ1153) church leaders, such as Priests or Bishops canonized Saints based on martyrdom only.
Since ᴬᴰ1153 only the Pope can canonize new Saints in Catholicism, and does so if they have performed 2 miracles (literal miracles such as turning water into wine).
Saint recognition is rare in Protestantism but the Anglican Church recognises the Catholic Saints pre-reformation and have only canonized a few Saints afterwards, mainly English martyrs against Catholicism.
Orthodox Church are inconsistent with their method and recognition of canonizing Saints, such as randomly canonizing every victim of the Armenian genocide a few years ago as Saints; while a seemingly nice sentiment, it's a poor use of Saint recognition.
Now that I've covered that back history; in Christianity the proper method of canonisation is based only on immense good works to the congregation.
Immense good works are extraordinary and positive contributions to the congregation (the White Christian populace). This would include martyrdom.
Who can make these recognitions/ canonize a new Saint? Church authorities.
While this may appear to promote salvation by works, or the worship of men; it's nothing as such. Salvation is by faith alone; intercession and invocation of Saints are meaningless as it doesn't work, they can't hear you. The purpose of veneration of Saints (Sainthood) was only meant to recognise and remember those who greatly and selflessly contributed to the congregation, sometimes even giving their lives, and to inspire future Christians to aspire to contribute themselves.
Being consistent with the Early Christian Church, the criteria for Sainthood are:
1: Extraordinary positive contribution to the White Christian populace (White race).
2: Are themselves White and Christian.
In the Early Church (including Orthodoxy, and Catholicism until ᴬᴰ1153) church leaders, such as Priests or Bishops canonized Saints based on martyrdom only.
Since ᴬᴰ1153 only the Pope can canonize new Saints in Catholicism, and does so if they have performed 2 miracles (literal miracles such as turning water into wine).
Saint recognition is rare in Protestantism but the Anglican Church recognises the Catholic Saints pre-reformation and have only canonized a few Saints afterwards, mainly English martyrs against Catholicism.
Orthodox Church are inconsistent with their method and recognition of canonizing Saints, such as randomly canonizing every victim of the Armenian genocide a few years ago as Saints; while a seemingly nice sentiment, it's a poor use of Saint recognition.
----------------------Now that I've covered that back history; in Christianity the proper method of canonisation is based only on immense good works to the congregation.
Immense good works are extraordinary and positive contributions to the congregation (the White Christian populace). This would include martyrdom.
Who can make these recognitions/ canonize a new Saint? Church authorities.
While this may appear to promote salvation by works, or the worship of men; it's nothing as such. Salvation is by faith alone; intercession and invocation of Saints are meaningless as it doesn't work, they can't hear you. The purpose of veneration of Saints (Sainthood) was only meant to recognise and remember those who greatly and selflessly contributed to the congregation, sometimes even giving their lives, and to inspire future Christians to aspire to contribute themselves.
Being consistent with the Early Christian Church, the criteria for Sainthood are:
1: Extraordinary positive contribution to the White Christian populace (White race).
2: Are themselves White and Christian.
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Happy Birthday Saint Adolf Hitler!
Today, on the anniversary of your birth, we recognise you as a Saint; having met the required criteria for Sainthood: being an Aryan of untainted blood, being a devoted Christian, and greatly contributing to the congregation (the race).
His contributions:
- The restoration and refinement of the European economic model with labour backed currency.
- The restoration of the fallen German state, unification of all German peoples, and near unification of all European peoples.
- The inspiration of the ideology of total European unity against Jews and nonwhites.
✞ 4/20/1889 — 4/30/1945 ✞Today, on the anniversary of your birth, we recognise you as a Saint; having met the required criteria for Sainthood: being an Aryan of untainted blood, being a devoted Christian, and greatly contributing to the congregation (the race).
His contributions:
- The restoration and refinement of the European economic model with labour backed currency.
- The restoration of the fallen German state, unification of all German peoples, and near unification of all European peoples.
- The inspiration of the ideology of total European unity against Jews and nonwhites.
❤2
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Today is ANZAC Day, an Australian day of remembrance and commemoration of the lives lost during the wars.
It is not a day of celebration but a day of mourning.
Today we shouldn't just mourn for the loss of Australian and New Zealand lives, but the lost of every single White life lost in the wars of the past century.
Over 100 million White lives lost, fighting against their own brothers, unknowingly for the interests of foreign peoples.
No More Brother Wars.
It is not a day of celebration but a day of mourning.
Today we shouldn't just mourn for the loss of Australian and New Zealand lives, but the lost of every single White life lost in the wars of the past century.
Over 100 million White lives lost, fighting against their own brothers, unknowingly for the interests of foreign peoples.
No More Brother Wars.
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Is the Harlot of Jericho an ancestor of Jesus?
(From the Christian Aryan Catechism; if you have any other questions relating to Christianity, please feel free to ask in the comments)
No she is not. Often the Harlot of Jericho [Joshua 2. 6.] is confused with Rachab, the wife of Salmon [Matthew 1:5].
The Old Testament mentions a variant of this name 5 times, in the book of Joshua [Joshua 2:1, 3. 6:17, 23, 25] all with consistent spelling in each biblical language. Hebrew: רחב (rchb); Greek: Ρααβ (Raab); Latin: Raab.
The New Testament mentions two different variants of this name 3 times. In the books of Hebrews and James in reference to the Harlot of Jericho [Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25] with the same spelling, that also perfectly match all 5 verses in the book of Joshua. Greek: Ρααβ (Raab); Latin: Raab. One more variant is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew in reference to the wife of Salmon [Matthew 1:5] with the following spelling. Greek: Ραχαβ (Rachab); Latin: Rachab.
What we can see here is that every single mention in both the Old and New Testament, in all languages, is spelt Raab, with two exceptions: Matthew, which is spelt Rachab in all languages and does not reference a Harlot of Jericho; and the Old Testament in Hebrew which spells the Harlot of Jericho as RCHB (Rachab).
Claiming this is the same person based on the matching spelling of the Harlot of Jericho in Hebrew and wife of Salmon in Greek, is a horrendous conflation when the Greek New Testament spells direct mentions of the Harlot of Jericho differently to Salmon's wife. Even if these were the same spelling, there's no reason to assume this is the same person. For further simplicity, we'll refer to them as Raab (Jericho) and Rachab (Salmon).
To remove any doubt that they could be the same person, we'll look into when approximately Salmon and Raab lived, to see if they correspond.
From the book of Joshua, two spies sent by Joshua to Jericho, met Raab who shelters them from authorities; this puts the Raab in the time period of Joshua who lived from 1355-1245ᴮᶜ, and this event above was during the Battle of Jericho which occured when Joshua was 101 years old (1,254ᴮᶜ). While close in time, Salmon wasn't born until 1228ᴮᶜ and Salmon's son to Rachab wasn't born until 1193ᴮᶜ. If we were to assume Raab's age was an extremely low estimate of 20 years old at the Battle of Jericho, Raab would be 46 years old when she met Salmon (his birth) and 61 years old when mothering Boaz. Raab was likely much older at Jericho but even with this low estimate, she is far too old to be his spouse.
It's quite realistic to assume these are two different women, especially considering there is no connection between them other than a similar name.
Why does it actually matter if Raab is Rachab? It doesn't, but many use this conflation to claim Jesus has impure Canaanite ancestry making Him a mongrel, who doesn't have a right to His throne.
The issues with this are: 1) There is nothing signifying whether Raab was a Canaanite or Israelite; only that she resided in Jericho, a major city. 2) Many, if not most, Canaanites were pure in Adamic ancestry; there's nothing signifying she was a Canaanite of impure ancestry. 3) Assuming she was a Canaanite and was Rachab, it is highly unlikely that the Israelites who just slaughtered the entire city of Jericho would immediately marry a Canaanite of impure ancestry. Being a female Canaanite of pure ancestry wouldn't affect the lineage as it's followed patriarchally, assuming the woman is of pure Adamic descent.
In conclusion, the Harlot of Jericho (Raab) is not the ancestor of Jesus (Rachab) and even if she was, it doesn't matter.
(From the Christian Aryan Catechism; if you have any other questions relating to Christianity, please feel free to ask in the comments)
No she is not. Often the Harlot of Jericho [Joshua 2. 6.] is confused with Rachab, the wife of Salmon [Matthew 1:5].
The Old Testament mentions a variant of this name 5 times, in the book of Joshua [Joshua 2:1, 3. 6:17, 23, 25] all with consistent spelling in each biblical language. Hebrew: רחב (rchb); Greek: Ρααβ (Raab); Latin: Raab.
The New Testament mentions two different variants of this name 3 times. In the books of Hebrews and James in reference to the Harlot of Jericho [Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25] with the same spelling, that also perfectly match all 5 verses in the book of Joshua. Greek: Ρααβ (Raab); Latin: Raab. One more variant is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew in reference to the wife of Salmon [Matthew 1:5] with the following spelling. Greek: Ραχαβ (Rachab); Latin: Rachab.
What we can see here is that every single mention in both the Old and New Testament, in all languages, is spelt Raab, with two exceptions: Matthew, which is spelt Rachab in all languages and does not reference a Harlot of Jericho; and the Old Testament in Hebrew which spells the Harlot of Jericho as RCHB (Rachab).
Claiming this is the same person based on the matching spelling of the Harlot of Jericho in Hebrew and wife of Salmon in Greek, is a horrendous conflation when the Greek New Testament spells direct mentions of the Harlot of Jericho differently to Salmon's wife. Even if these were the same spelling, there's no reason to assume this is the same person. For further simplicity, we'll refer to them as Raab (Jericho) and Rachab (Salmon).
To remove any doubt that they could be the same person, we'll look into when approximately Salmon and Raab lived, to see if they correspond.
From the book of Joshua, two spies sent by Joshua to Jericho, met Raab who shelters them from authorities; this puts the Raab in the time period of Joshua who lived from 1355-1245ᴮᶜ, and this event above was during the Battle of Jericho which occured when Joshua was 101 years old (1,254ᴮᶜ). While close in time, Salmon wasn't born until 1228ᴮᶜ and Salmon's son to Rachab wasn't born until 1193ᴮᶜ. If we were to assume Raab's age was an extremely low estimate of 20 years old at the Battle of Jericho, Raab would be 46 years old when she met Salmon (his birth) and 61 years old when mothering Boaz. Raab was likely much older at Jericho but even with this low estimate, she is far too old to be his spouse.
It's quite realistic to assume these are two different women, especially considering there is no connection between them other than a similar name.
Why does it actually matter if Raab is Rachab? It doesn't, but many use this conflation to claim Jesus has impure Canaanite ancestry making Him a mongrel, who doesn't have a right to His throne.
The issues with this are: 1) There is nothing signifying whether Raab was a Canaanite or Israelite; only that she resided in Jericho, a major city. 2) Many, if not most, Canaanites were pure in Adamic ancestry; there's nothing signifying she was a Canaanite of impure ancestry. 3) Assuming she was a Canaanite and was Rachab, it is highly unlikely that the Israelites who just slaughtered the entire city of Jericho would immediately marry a Canaanite of impure ancestry. Being a female Canaanite of pure ancestry wouldn't affect the lineage as it's followed patriarchally, assuming the woman is of pure Adamic descent.
In conclusion, the Harlot of Jericho (Raab) is not the ancestor of Jesus (Rachab) and even if she was, it doesn't matter.
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Cessationism Vs Continuationism
(Excerpts taken from the Christian Aryan Catechism)
Spiritual Gifts:
- abilities from the Holy Spirit such as: speaking in tongues, prophecy, revelation and healing.
Cessationism:
- Spiritual Gifts ended with the end of the Apostolic Age.
Continuationism:
- Spiritual Gifts never ended.
Full Cessationism:
- Spiritual Gifts have ceased with the Apostles.
Classical Cessationism:
- Spiritual Gifts ceased with the Apostles; however occasionally God works in preternatural ways today.
Consistent Cessationism:
- not only Spirituals Gifts, but the need for Apostles and Prophets ceased with the Apostles; and were only for the establishment of the First Century Church.
Concentric Cessationism:
- Spiritual Gifts ceased with the Apostles; however will still occur in unreached (non-Christian) regions in the aid of spreading the Gospel.
Empirical Cessationism:
- Spiritual Gifts were lost due to the Church's deviation from sound doctrine and not that they actually ended.
Radical Continuationism:
- Spiritual Gifts never ceased and are freely available to any Christian individual. This often takes place in Charismatic Churches as a mockery of Christianity in phony public performances of exorcisms and healings.
Dispensational Continuationism:
- Spiritual Gifts are still available to the Church, though lessor to the Apostolic Age and can not provide new revelation; only serving as continued guidance.
Cessationism arose as a response to "Counterfeit Miracles" by the Catholic Church who used staged or fabricated claims of miracles as a polemic against Reformed Churches during the Protestant Reformation; to assert that Catholic views and doctrines in opposition of Protestantism, were confirmed by God as correct.
The purpose of only the Apostles being able to use Spiritual Gifts was to prove Christian authenticity in evangelization, confirm divine revelation and affirm the Church's doctrine for the initial establishment and foundation of the Christian faith; this reaching finalisation and ending with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John who authored the last book of the bible, Revelation.
This is important, as if Continuationism were correct and the possibility of new prophecy or revelation (Spiritual Gifts) were still available, then new prophets could arise to rewrite the Christian faith; adding to, or modifying existing Canon.
As the Reformation reaffirmed the original Apostolic teachings, no additional miracles were required by Protestants; as opposed to the Catholic Church which depended on new miracles to affirm their doctrines, which were contrary to Apostolic tradition and contrary to scripture.
The Christian foundation was already laid and divine revelation had already been confirmed, sealing Canon. Any new claims of Spiritual Gifts should be met with skepticism as it would only serve to contradict and corrupt already established Christian faith.
Scripture itself confirms the ending of Spiritual Gifts when "that which is τέλειον(matured/ full-grown/ complete) comes" [1 Corinthians 13:8-12], this clearly in reference to the maturity and completion of the Early Church; which ended with the death of the last Apostle and closure of Canon (scripture).
For these reasons the true position is Consistent Cessationism, as the need for Spiritual Gifts, Apostles and Prophets were only for the establishment of the First Century Church and scripture.
Tell your thoughts and position in the comments and on the poll!
(Excerpts taken from the Christian Aryan Catechism)
Spiritual Gifts:
- abilities from the Holy Spirit such as: speaking in tongues, prophecy, revelation and healing.
Cessationism:
- Spiritual Gifts ended with the end of the Apostolic Age.
Continuationism:
- Spiritual Gifts never ended.
------------------Full Cessationism:
- Spiritual Gifts have ceased with the Apostles.
Classical Cessationism:
- Spiritual Gifts ceased with the Apostles; however occasionally God works in preternatural ways today.
Consistent Cessationism:
- not only Spirituals Gifts, but the need for Apostles and Prophets ceased with the Apostles; and were only for the establishment of the First Century Church.
Concentric Cessationism:
- Spiritual Gifts ceased with the Apostles; however will still occur in unreached (non-Christian) regions in the aid of spreading the Gospel.
Empirical Cessationism:
- Spiritual Gifts were lost due to the Church's deviation from sound doctrine and not that they actually ended.
Radical Continuationism:
- Spiritual Gifts never ceased and are freely available to any Christian individual. This often takes place in Charismatic Churches as a mockery of Christianity in phony public performances of exorcisms and healings.
Dispensational Continuationism:
- Spiritual Gifts are still available to the Church, though lessor to the Apostolic Age and can not provide new revelation; only serving as continued guidance.
------------------Cessationism arose as a response to "Counterfeit Miracles" by the Catholic Church who used staged or fabricated claims of miracles as a polemic against Reformed Churches during the Protestant Reformation; to assert that Catholic views and doctrines in opposition of Protestantism, were confirmed by God as correct.
The purpose of only the Apostles being able to use Spiritual Gifts was to prove Christian authenticity in evangelization, confirm divine revelation and affirm the Church's doctrine for the initial establishment and foundation of the Christian faith; this reaching finalisation and ending with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John who authored the last book of the bible, Revelation.
This is important, as if Continuationism were correct and the possibility of new prophecy or revelation (Spiritual Gifts) were still available, then new prophets could arise to rewrite the Christian faith; adding to, or modifying existing Canon.
As the Reformation reaffirmed the original Apostolic teachings, no additional miracles were required by Protestants; as opposed to the Catholic Church which depended on new miracles to affirm their doctrines, which were contrary to Apostolic tradition and contrary to scripture.
The Christian foundation was already laid and divine revelation had already been confirmed, sealing Canon. Any new claims of Spiritual Gifts should be met with skepticism as it would only serve to contradict and corrupt already established Christian faith.
Scripture itself confirms the ending of Spiritual Gifts when "that which is τέλειον(matured/ full-grown/ complete) comes" [1 Corinthians 13:8-12], this clearly in reference to the maturity and completion of the Early Church; which ended with the death of the last Apostle and closure of Canon (scripture).
For these reasons the true position is Consistent Cessationism, as the need for Spiritual Gifts, Apostles and Prophets were only for the establishment of the First Century Church and scripture.
Tell your thoughts and position in the comments and on the poll!
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Cessationism Vs Continuationism
(Use previous post on channel for further information)
(Use previous post on channel for further information)
Anonymous Poll
18%
Full Cessationism
10%
Classical Cessationism
9%
Consistent Cessationism
2%
Concentric Cessationism
6%
Empirical Cessationism
34%
----- NOT SURE -----
12%
Radical (Full) Continuationism
8%
Dispensational Continuationism