Christian Aryanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.

2021-04-27 04:52:12 Christian Aryanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable. pinned a photo Open / Comment

2021-04-27 04:52:08 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 Open / Comment

2021-04-27 03:13:19 35% on "not sure" is exactly the reason I write 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 this.

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. Open / Comment

2021-04-26 17:05:06 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! Open / Comment

2021-04-25 10:22:00 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. Open / Comment

2021-04-25 03:12:59 Today is ANZAC Day, an Australian and New Zealand 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. Open / Comment

2021-04-20 14:44:41 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… Open / Comment

2021-04-20 14:00:34 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. Open / Comment