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.
For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.
Hebrews 3:4
#BB @FaithAndFolk3
Hebrews 3:4
#BB @FaithAndFolk3
Forwarded from Restored Puritanism — Fides et Gens, Inseperable.
Underman:
The English term that untermensch originally derived from.
—A person considered genetically, racially or socially inferior by innate qualities.
As opposed to Overman (übermensch), the inverse of Underman.
An issue that has been at the forefront of European discussion on demographics for centuries, is the issue of the Underman, commonly referred to as undesirables. Often fantasized in demonic ways with bizarre and inconsistent criteria.
They have however always been the following:
—persons with genetic defects.
—persons with poor physical traits.
—persons of mixed race/ tainted ancestry.
—persons of lower socioeconomic class.
Ultimately though, all 4 of these categories can be boiled down to the first one: defects in your genetic code.
—poor physical traits are produced by deficiencies in your genetic code.
—non-white ancestry can be seen as a genetic defect which causes undesirable traits, broken gene pairings, lowered intelligence and heightened aggression.
—poor socioeconomic performance is often a product of genetic code which makes you disadvantaged to your peers.
We shouldn't however forget the importance of superior culture, which we pass to our children.
While I disagree that poor socioeconomic performance equals genetic inferiority; our ancestors (who didn't understand genetics) simply understood that having children with a spouse in any of those 4 categories meant your children would likely be there also, and be disadvantaged.
Prior to industrialism, this was never an issue, as only those with clean ancestry/ genetics, had the means to successfully raise large families into adulthood (natural selection). This isn't a polemic against the industrial revolution, as it still remains the best thing to happen to the White race.
Industrialism was the product of superior men building amazing societies/ civilizations which provided excellent living standards to all, allowing the lower socioeconomic class to successfully raise large families into adulthood.
It would be inhumane, non-altruistic, non-European, to believe this was a bad thing; the issue came after when we all stopped caring. The Overman didn't care to have children, the Underman didn't care to limit their children; neither cared to select spouses on good qualities, and regressed to the mean. The result being intentionally few higher quality children, and unintentionally many lower quality children.
Europeans did come up with a solution to this issue however: family planning; i.e. birth control. On the surface this appears disastrous, the sharp decline in overall White fertility, however the fertility that does occur is significantly better quality. We're in a period of quality refinement, and if the superior White stock continue to have White children, we'll begin to grow again and surpass our current population in better quality than today.
We already see this occurring across the world (Opportunity And Adaptation), where only Whites who care about our race, are having White children, and those of quality are capable of successfully having large White families; whilst the fertility of the Non-white world is drastically grinding to a halt and shrinking.
Where's it going wrong?
Ethnic replacement (mass immigration), race-mixing and an aggressive cultural push for disinterest in having White children; particularly quality White children.
What am I supposed to take away from this?
While I push for you all to have large White families, we mustn't forget quality. I want us all to have large quality/ healthy White families.
The previous post gathered much criticism (Stop Making Excuses) for all the wrong reasons; the criticism should have been that I didn't explicitly express quality enough, but instead the protests were "it's all too hard!" or "it's impossible to find a decent White spouse!".
This is ultimately just natural selection at work, only those good enough genetically and culturally, will be able to court a quality White spouse and have large healthy White families; while the inferior are left to complain.
The English term that untermensch originally derived from.
—A person considered genetically, racially or socially inferior by innate qualities.
As opposed to Overman (übermensch), the inverse of Underman.
An issue that has been at the forefront of European discussion on demographics for centuries, is the issue of the Underman, commonly referred to as undesirables. Often fantasized in demonic ways with bizarre and inconsistent criteria.
They have however always been the following:
—persons with genetic defects.
—persons with poor physical traits.
—persons of mixed race/ tainted ancestry.
—persons of lower socioeconomic class.
Ultimately though, all 4 of these categories can be boiled down to the first one: defects in your genetic code.
—poor physical traits are produced by deficiencies in your genetic code.
—non-white ancestry can be seen as a genetic defect which causes undesirable traits, broken gene pairings, lowered intelligence and heightened aggression.
—poor socioeconomic performance is often a product of genetic code which makes you disadvantaged to your peers.
We shouldn't however forget the importance of superior culture, which we pass to our children.
While I disagree that poor socioeconomic performance equals genetic inferiority; our ancestors (who didn't understand genetics) simply understood that having children with a spouse in any of those 4 categories meant your children would likely be there also, and be disadvantaged.
Prior to industrialism, this was never an issue, as only those with clean ancestry/ genetics, had the means to successfully raise large families into adulthood (natural selection). This isn't a polemic against the industrial revolution, as it still remains the best thing to happen to the White race.
Industrialism was the product of superior men building amazing societies/ civilizations which provided excellent living standards to all, allowing the lower socioeconomic class to successfully raise large families into adulthood.
It would be inhumane, non-altruistic, non-European, to believe this was a bad thing; the issue came after when we all stopped caring. The Overman didn't care to have children, the Underman didn't care to limit their children; neither cared to select spouses on good qualities, and regressed to the mean. The result being intentionally few higher quality children, and unintentionally many lower quality children.
Europeans did come up with a solution to this issue however: family planning; i.e. birth control. On the surface this appears disastrous, the sharp decline in overall White fertility, however the fertility that does occur is significantly better quality. We're in a period of quality refinement, and if the superior White stock continue to have White children, we'll begin to grow again and surpass our current population in better quality than today.
We already see this occurring across the world (Opportunity And Adaptation), where only Whites who care about our race, are having White children, and those of quality are capable of successfully having large White families; whilst the fertility of the Non-white world is drastically grinding to a halt and shrinking.
Where's it going wrong?
Ethnic replacement (mass immigration), race-mixing and an aggressive cultural push for disinterest in having White children; particularly quality White children.
What am I supposed to take away from this?
While I push for you all to have large White families, we mustn't forget quality. I want us all to have large quality/ healthy White families.
The previous post gathered much criticism (Stop Making Excuses) for all the wrong reasons; the criticism should have been that I didn't explicitly express quality enough, but instead the protests were "it's all too hard!" or "it's impossible to find a decent White spouse!".
This is ultimately just natural selection at work, only those good enough genetically and culturally, will be able to court a quality White spouse and have large healthy White families; while the inferior are left to complain.
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Those who once feasted on delicacies perish in the streets; those who were brought up in purple embrace ash heaps.
Lamentations 4:5
#BB @FaithAndFolk3
Lamentations 4:5
#BB @FaithAndFolk3