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
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
35% on "not sure" is exactly the reason I wrote posts like these.
It's unfortunate how little modern Christians know of their own theology and doctrine; but that is why we discuss and share content like these.
It reminds of Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation:
Upon venturing into the countryside, Luther was greatly dismayed at what he saw. By his own account:
“How pitiable, so help me God, were the things I saw: the common man knows practically nothing of Christian doctrine, and many of the pastors are almost entirely incompetent and unable to teach.”
This inspired Luther to give the common man a summary of Christianity. The Small Catechism, which was the core biblical tenets and prayers of the Christian Man.
For this same reason, I labour to create a Catechism for Christian Aryanism.
It's unfortunate how little modern Christians know of their own theology and doctrine; but that is why we discuss and share content like these.
It reminds of Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation:
Upon venturing into the countryside, Luther was greatly dismayed at what he saw. By his own account:
“How pitiable, so help me God, were the things I saw: the common man knows practically nothing of Christian doctrine, and many of the pastors are almost entirely incompetent and unable to teach.”
This inspired Luther to give the common man a summary of Christianity. The Small Catechism, which was the core biblical tenets and prayers of the Christian Man.
For this same reason, I labour to create a Catechism for Christian Aryanism.
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Questions and Suggestions:
Leave a comment to this post if you have a: question, suggestion, or would just like to see an in-depth analysis; on any topic regarding Christianity, theology, doctrine, textual criticism, Christian Aryanism itself or even anthropology relating to the faith!
I'll take your queries with the utmost seriousness and try my best to accurately and concisely answer it with a post on the channel for everyone to learn as well!
Before asking, make sure it isn't already covered below!
- FAQ (Many questions)
- Was Jesus White?
- Was Christianity the cause of the Dark Age?
- Why was pork banned?
- Is evolution/ old earth contradictory to the bible?
- What is the Real Presence?
- What makes a Saint?
- Was the Harlot of Jericho, Jesus' ancestor?
- Cessationism Vs Continuationism?
Or check out our other content:
- Codex Amiatinus (Project)
- CA Oath
- Six Solas
- Boeric Covenant
- Christmas
- —nym
Leave a comment to this post if you have a: question, suggestion, or would just like to see an in-depth analysis; on any topic regarding Christianity, theology, doctrine, textual criticism, Christian Aryanism itself or even anthropology relating to the faith!
I'll take your queries with the utmost seriousness and try my best to accurately and concisely answer it with a post on the channel for everyone to learn as well!
-------------------Before asking, make sure it isn't already covered below!
- FAQ (Many questions)
- Was Jesus White?
- Was Christianity the cause of the Dark Age?
- Why was pork banned?
- Is evolution/ old earth contradictory to the bible?
- What is the Real Presence?
- What makes a Saint?
- Was the Harlot of Jericho, Jesus' ancestor?
- Cessationism Vs Continuationism?
Or check out our other content:
- Codex Amiatinus (Project)
- CA Oath
- Six Solas
- Boeric Covenant
- Christmas
- —nym
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Is there support for a triune God (Trinity) in the Old Testament?
Yes.
Isaiah 48:12-16 [Old Testament] ¹⁷⁶⁹ᐟᴷᴶⱽ
¹² Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
¹³ Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
¹⁴ All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
¹⁵ I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
¹⁶ Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
The person speaking created the world, but also called upon God and his Spirit; who sent Him.
We see 3 distinct people, I, Lord and Spirit; who are all God, a single God, all written in the Old Testament. The consistency between the Old and New Testament is flawless.
Who was sent by both God and His Spirit? "now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me."
Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ who while the cross was pierced by a spear.
Zechariah 12:10 [Old Testament] ¹⁷⁶⁹ᐟᴷᴶⱽ
¹⁰ And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Matthew 28:19 [New Testament] ¹⁷⁶⁹ᐟᴷᴶⱽ
¹⁹ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Have a question? Feel free to comment it on our questions and answers post
Yes.
Isaiah 48:12-16 [Old Testament] ¹⁷⁶⁹ᐟᴷᴶⱽ
¹² Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
¹³ Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
¹⁴ All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
¹⁵ I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
¹⁶ Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
------------------The person speaking created the world, but also called upon God and his Spirit; who sent Him.
We see 3 distinct people, I, Lord and Spirit; who are all God, a single God, all written in the Old Testament. The consistency between the Old and New Testament is flawless.
Who was sent by both God and His Spirit? "now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me."
Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ who while the cross was pierced by a spear.
------------------Zechariah 12:10 [Old Testament] ¹⁷⁶⁹ᐟᴷᴶⱽ
¹⁰ And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Matthew 28:19 [New Testament] ¹⁷⁶⁹ᐟᴷᴶⱽ
¹⁹ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
------------------Have a question? Feel free to comment it on our questions and answers post
❤1
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
What is the Origin of Souls?
(Excerpts taken from the Christian Aryan Catechism)
In determining the origin of human souls, Christian theologians have adhered to 5 main theories.
Creationism
- every individual soul is created and given by God at birth; adherents differ on the moment of soul creation, whether it is conception, implantation or birth. Advocates include Saint Jerome and John Calvin and the Catholic Church, by the magisterium in the instruction Dignitas Personae; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 366, which states "The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God— it is not 'produced' by the parents…."
Reincarnation
- (also known as rebirth or transmigration) every individual is inhabited by a soul from a previous person. This view falls short as it doesn't account for the actual initial creation of souls and would beg to question if there is a limited number of souls available.
Pre-Existence
- every individual soul was either eternal or was created at some point prior to material existence. Despite advocates like Origen of Alexandria, Pre-Existence was condemned as heresy in the Second Council of Constantinople in ᴬᴰ553. It is still followed by the Mormon Church today.
Traducianism
- every individual obtains their soul from their parent/s, who it is transmitted from. Originally developed by Tertullian of Carthage, the name was coined in reference to a "grape vine" where all souls are a part of the same vine which originates with the root Adam. Despite it's wide usage, it however has some paradoxical shortcomings, such as: the blurry-lines between if there is only one soul we all share (Adam's) or if humans have individual souls; and if this soul could be transmitted into fauna (soulless creatures) through successful carnal propagation. An example of this fauna propagation issue is that a race-mixed child (as well as any inter-Adamite/ inter-species union) would have a full soul, be able to pass that on and be a beneficiary to the promises of the New Covenant, due to receiving their soul from their Adamic parent.
Generationism
- every individual soul is the product of both their parents souls; that propagation is of the whole person.
Ramifications of this doctrine which solve the issues of Traducianism (which Generationism is based on), is that just like only two bodies can produce body-offspring; only two souls can produce soul-offspring. Successful offspring from a body with a soul and a body without a soul (such as fauna, or race-mixing) would only propagate bodies with no souls.
Which is true?
We must simply look at scripture. There is only one verse where a soul is directly created by God; Adam's creation [Genesis 2:7]. Not even Eve's soul was created, Eve was only and wholly created from the substance of Adam [Genesis 2:21-23], both her body and soul came from Adam. Between them, they propagate both souls and bodies of Adam; which is why it was important for them to be fruit and multiply [Genesis 1:28]. Later it is mentioned that souls came from Jacob's loins [Genesis 48:26], supporting soul propagation.
Scripture clearly shows Generationism to be true.
[Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh: Chapter 45] "The two are no doubt produced by human parents of two substances, but not at two different periods; rather they are so entirely one, that neither is before the other in point of time."
Have a question? Feel free to comment it on our questions and answers post
(Excerpts taken from the Christian Aryan Catechism)
In determining the origin of human souls, Christian theologians have adhered to 5 main theories.
Creationism
- every individual soul is created and given by God at birth; adherents differ on the moment of soul creation, whether it is conception, implantation or birth. Advocates include Saint Jerome and John Calvin and the Catholic Church, by the magisterium in the instruction Dignitas Personae; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 366, which states "The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God— it is not 'produced' by the parents…."
Reincarnation
- (also known as rebirth or transmigration) every individual is inhabited by a soul from a previous person. This view falls short as it doesn't account for the actual initial creation of souls and would beg to question if there is a limited number of souls available.
Pre-Existence
- every individual soul was either eternal or was created at some point prior to material existence. Despite advocates like Origen of Alexandria, Pre-Existence was condemned as heresy in the Second Council of Constantinople in ᴬᴰ553. It is still followed by the Mormon Church today.
Traducianism
- every individual obtains their soul from their parent/s, who it is transmitted from. Originally developed by Tertullian of Carthage, the name was coined in reference to a "grape vine" where all souls are a part of the same vine which originates with the root Adam. Despite it's wide usage, it however has some paradoxical shortcomings, such as: the blurry-lines between if there is only one soul we all share (Adam's) or if humans have individual souls; and if this soul could be transmitted into fauna (soulless creatures) through successful carnal propagation. An example of this fauna propagation issue is that a race-mixed child (as well as any inter-Adamite/ inter-species union) would have a full soul, be able to pass that on and be a beneficiary to the promises of the New Covenant, due to receiving their soul from their Adamic parent.
Generationism
- every individual soul is the product of both their parents souls; that propagation is of the whole person.
Ramifications of this doctrine which solve the issues of Traducianism (which Generationism is based on), is that just like only two bodies can produce body-offspring; only two souls can produce soul-offspring. Successful offspring from a body with a soul and a body without a soul (such as fauna, or race-mixing) would only propagate bodies with no souls.
Which is true?
We must simply look at scripture. There is only one verse where a soul is directly created by God; Adam's creation [Genesis 2:7]. Not even Eve's soul was created, Eve was only and wholly created from the substance of Adam [Genesis 2:21-23], both her body and soul came from Adam. Between them, they propagate both souls and bodies of Adam; which is why it was important for them to be fruit and multiply [Genesis 1:28]. Later it is mentioned that souls came from Jacob's loins [Genesis 48:26], supporting soul propagation.
Scripture clearly shows Generationism to be true.
[Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh: Chapter 45] "The two are no doubt produced by human parents of two substances, but not at two different periods; rather they are so entirely one, that neither is before the other in point of time."
------------------Have a question? Feel free to comment it on our questions and answers post
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
The Christian God IS NOT the same God as the Jewish nor Muslim God.
Our God is triune and is the same God in both the Old and New Testament.
Old Testament:
- Plural nouns with singular verbs (triune) [Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 54:5]
- Self-reference in plurals [Genesis 1:26; Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7; Isaiah 6:8]
- Explicit mention of persons in Trinity [Isaiah 48:16-17]
- Specifically mentions God The Father [Isaiah 63:16; Malachi 2:10]
- Specifically mentions God The Son [Psalm 45:6-7; Psalm 2:6-7; Psalm 2:12; Proverbs 30:4]
- God The Son has divine titles [Isaiah 9:6; Jeremiah 23:5-6]
- Specifically mentions The Holy Spirit [Genesis 1:2; Genesis 6:3; Isaiah 11:2-3; Isaiah 48:16-17; Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 63:10]
- The Trinity is foreshadowed in benedictions [Genesis 48:15-16; Numbers 6:24-27; Isaiah 6:3]
New Testament:
- Literal mentions of the Godhead [Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9]
- Three distinct persons of a single God who interact with each other [Matthew 3:16-17. 12:32. 17:5; Luke 3:21-22. 4:1; John 1:1-3. 6:27. 14:16-17, 26. 15:26. 16:7-16; Romans 9:5; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 4:6. 13:14; Colossians 1:15-17; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 1:13. 2:18; Titus 2:13-14; Hebrews 1:1-3. 9:14; 1 Peter 1:2]
- Commanded to baptize in the name of all 3 [Matthew 28:19]
- (All 3 are mentioned specifically hundreds of times, so have not included a list of verses for this)
An interesting assertion of Spanish theologian Michael Servetus (ᴬᴰ1511-1553) who argued against use of the Trinity:
"In his first two books (De trinitatis erroribus, and Dialogues on the Trinity plus the supplementary De Iustitia Regni Christi) Servetus rejected the classical conception of the Trinity, stating that it was not based on the Bible. He argued that it arose from teachings of Greek philosophers, and he advocated a return to the simplicity of the Gospels and the teachings of the early Church Fathers that he believed predated the development of Nicene trinitarianism. Servetus hoped that the dismissal of the trinitarian dogma would make Christianity more appealing to believers in Judaism and Islam, which had preserved the unity of God in their teachings."
Why would it be difficult for Jews and Muslims to convert to Christianity? Because we don't believe in the same God.
As we have demonstrated above, the Christian God, the triune God, is: the God of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament, the Christian God, the God of our people without the slightest deviation. The Jewish and Muslim Gods however are none of these.
God has not changed and we have preserved Him.
The Triune Christian God is the God of our people and always has been.
Have a question? Feel free to comment it on our questions and answers post
Our God is triune and is the same God in both the Old and New Testament.
Old Testament:
- Plural nouns with singular verbs (triune) [Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 54:5]
- Self-reference in plurals [Genesis 1:26; Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7; Isaiah 6:8]
- Explicit mention of persons in Trinity [Isaiah 48:16-17]
- Specifically mentions God The Father [Isaiah 63:16; Malachi 2:10]
- Specifically mentions God The Son [Psalm 45:6-7; Psalm 2:6-7; Psalm 2:12; Proverbs 30:4]
- God The Son has divine titles [Isaiah 9:6; Jeremiah 23:5-6]
- Specifically mentions The Holy Spirit [Genesis 1:2; Genesis 6:3; Isaiah 11:2-3; Isaiah 48:16-17; Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 63:10]
- The Trinity is foreshadowed in benedictions [Genesis 48:15-16; Numbers 6:24-27; Isaiah 6:3]
New Testament:
- Literal mentions of the Godhead [Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9]
- Three distinct persons of a single God who interact with each other [Matthew 3:16-17. 12:32. 17:5; Luke 3:21-22. 4:1; John 1:1-3. 6:27. 14:16-17, 26. 15:26. 16:7-16; Romans 9:5; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 4:6. 13:14; Colossians 1:15-17; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 1:13. 2:18; Titus 2:13-14; Hebrews 1:1-3. 9:14; 1 Peter 1:2]
- Commanded to baptize in the name of all 3 [Matthew 28:19]
- (All 3 are mentioned specifically hundreds of times, so have not included a list of verses for this)
An interesting assertion of Spanish theologian Michael Servetus (ᴬᴰ1511-1553) who argued against use of the Trinity:
"In his first two books (De trinitatis erroribus, and Dialogues on the Trinity plus the supplementary De Iustitia Regni Christi) Servetus rejected the classical conception of the Trinity, stating that it was not based on the Bible. He argued that it arose from teachings of Greek philosophers, and he advocated a return to the simplicity of the Gospels and the teachings of the early Church Fathers that he believed predated the development of Nicene trinitarianism. Servetus hoped that the dismissal of the trinitarian dogma would make Christianity more appealing to believers in Judaism and Islam, which had preserved the unity of God in their teachings."
Why would it be difficult for Jews and Muslims to convert to Christianity? Because we don't believe in the same God.
As we have demonstrated above, the Christian God, the triune God, is: the God of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament, the Christian God, the God of our people without the slightest deviation. The Jewish and Muslim Gods however are none of these.
God has not changed and we have preserved Him.
------------------The Triune Christian God is the God of our people and always has been.
------------------Have a question? Feel free to comment it on our questions and answers post