Soteriology and the Historical Struggle between the Monophysites and Dyophysites

The bust of Serapis.
Serapis Soter ( a.k.a Ptolemy I Lagi ) was the first historical savior and the first historical Greek ruler of ancient Egypt.

The fights between the monophysites and dyophysites lasted for almost 1000 years, but to fully understand the nearly 1000 years of struggle between these two opposing groups and the eventual truce that led to the creation of “Abrahamic triad,” one has to study and expose the origin of soteriology.  Soteriology is simply the study of soul salvation.  In the Christian doctrine of the West, the theory of soul salvation is linked with vicarious atonement – the idea that your salvation depends on the death of Christ. However, in the Hindu-Cush mystery system of the East, the theory of soul salvation is linked with personal responsibility – that is, you’re solely responsible for your own salvation.

  

The original trinity. The divine Triad of the farther (Ausar or Osiris), the sun (Heru or Horus) and the mother godess Hathor (Isis or Auset).

In the mystery system of the ancient Egypt, Ausar (mispronounced Osiris) was the primary deity. According to the legend, Ausar was the invisible leader of the gods on earth, and the sole judge of the dead in the underworld.  He was portrayed to have a single “nature” which was divine, but not human – this would become relevant later. Before the arrival of the Greeks in ancient Egypt, the cult of Ausar was undoubtedly the biggest in the land, or perhaps the biggest in the ancient world. However, at the arrival of the Greeks in ancient Egypt, the almighty cult of Ausar would forever change. The Greek leader of conquered Egypt, Ptolemy I Lagi (a.k.a Ptolemy I Soter) replaced the cult of Ausar with the newly created cult of Serapis. Serapis’ attributes were drawn from the preexisting indigenous cult of Ausar and the less popular cult of Apis bull, which when combined formed Serapis. Ptolemy I Lagi calculated that the creation of Serapis would ease tension of Greek invasion and unify the Africans and the Greeks in the country. Alas, his calculation paid off! The people in the country were unified under the cult of Serapis, and Ptolemy I Lagi became the first historical Savior (Soter in Greek) and the central figure of the Serapis cult (i.e., Serapis Soter) – the hellenization of ancient Egypt was complete.

Ausar (i.e., Osiris). Osiris was the primary deity of ancient Egypt. In power, he was second only to his father, Ra, and was the leader of the gods on earth. He was the husband of Isis and the father of Horus.  

Ausar sitting on the great throne of  judgement in the underworld where the soul of the dead is weighed against the feather of truth or Maat.

Ptolemy I Lagi had long gone, but the cult of Serapis he created remained. The Greco reign in ancient Egypt lasted for almost 300 years until it was forcefully overthrown by the Romans. Though conquered by the Romans, the Egyptians spread their cult of Serapis and its derivatives like wild fire to Rome. It must be said that while the Romans conquered ancient Egypt militarily, the ancient Egyptians conquered Rome spiritually. When the aftershock of Serapis tsunami finally reached Rome, the indigenous pagan cult of Rome was swept into the dustbin of history. Roman elders, under Constantine, felt threatened under the invasion of a foreign cult. They quickly devised a control strategy which they found in dyophysitism. Dyophysitism is a theological doctrine that recognizes the dual nature of Christ, the divine and the human. At the council of Nicaea I, Constantine and the appointed Roman elders accepted Serapis as Christ the savior (i.e., Soter Christos), with dual nature of divine and man. Dyophysitism emerged after the council of Nicaea I, but the Coptic Egyptians who originally introduced the cult of Serapis to Rome utterly rejected dyophysitism because they only recognized the divine Osiris-like characteristics in Serapis, but could not recognize Serapis as human. These Coptic Egyptians who only recognized the divine nature of Serapis, now Christ, were known in history as Monophysites. The council of Nicaea I marked the beginning of a long struggle between the monophysites and the dyophysites.  

In spite of the disagreements between the monophysites and the dyophysites about the nature of the created Christ, Christianity developed in the Roman Empire, where it became the official religion of the Empire. However, the disagreements divided Christianity and its central authority into two distinct units. The monophysites or the heretics, as they were mostly called, occupied the Eastern end of the Holy Roman Empire (i.e., Byzantine Empire - North East Africa and Constantinople) while the dyophysites occupied the Western end of the Holy Roman Empire. After a series of council meetings among the church patriarchs to resolve the nature of Christ and over 900 years of struggle between the monophysites and the dyophysites, monophysitism somehow evolved into a new spiritual philosophy called monism. Monism, perhaps of Sufi origin, is a spiritual doctrine that promotes the existence of one Supreme Being or substance, but denies the existence of duality in god or substance. The original followers of Monism were called Mahometans or Mohammedans. It is not really clear how monophysitism was absorbed into monism, but it is very clear that the two spiritual principles are very similar. The general consensus was that the absorption of monophysitism into monism started during the crusades when the Saracen and the Seljukian Turks, who appeared to practice some form of monism, invaded and took over the monophysitic North Eastern part of the Holy Roman Empire. 

The eventual victory of the Turks over the Romans in the Eastern side of the Holy Roman Empire (i.e, Byzantine) prompted the Romans to move the seat of Christendom from the church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople to St. Peter Basilica in the Vatican, Rome. This move marked the end of Christendom in the Eastern Holy Roman Empire and paved the way for the spread of monism or Mohammedanism – remember Mahometans or Mohammedans were followers of some form of monism. This move also marked the end of close to 1000 years of back and forth dialectics and fights between the monophysites and dyophysites. Christianity, in its dyophysitic form, became the religion of the West and Monism or Mohammedanism, in its monophysitic form, became the religion of the East.  The Turks replaced the Byzantine Holy Roma Empire of the East with the Ottoman Empire they created.

Mystic, philosopher, poet, sage, great monist, Muhammad Ibn ‘Arabi is one of the world’s great spiritual teachers. Known as Muhyiddin (the Revivifier of Religion) and the Shaykh al-Akbar (the Greatest Master), he was born in 1165 AD into the Moorish culture of Andalusian Spain, the center of an extraordinary flourishing and cross-fertilization of Jewish, Christian and Islamic thought. Scholars believe that Ibn al Arabi was the real Mohammed in the Islamic Quran.

Around 1040-1190 A.D, shortly after the fights between the monophysites and dyophysites had subsided, a Jewish baron by the name Solomon Bar Isaac called RASHI and the monophysite Knight Templars formulated Judaism based off Sefer Ha Yashar, the literature originally created by RASHI. However, it was Moses Ben Maimon called Maimonides who expanded on Sefer Ha Yashar literature and wrote the first five books of the Old Testament called the Pentateuch (i.e., the first 5 books of Moses 1168-1180 A.D). The Jewish barons of Europe, capitalizing on the spread of Christianity in the West and the invention of printing press, printed the Old Testament in 1475 A.D for the Christian community of Europe.  The Pope (Alexander VI – 1492-1503), not satisfied with the silence about Jesus the Christ in the printed Old Testament, instructed Desiderius Erasmus, an ex-priest and playwright to create the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), known as Novuum Testamentum or the New Testament. Almost 100 years later the fourth Gospel John was added in the King James Bible. Shortly before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the East (1870 A.D), a group of Jewish Scholars and Rabbi under the instruction of the monist Ottoman ruler (Abulaziz) formulated the Koran by combining the four Christian gospels and the Jewish Torah. With the formulation of the Koran, Islam was born naturally out of Mohammedanism and the creation of the Abrahamic triad (i.e., Christianity, Islam and Judaism) was complete.

The crescent moon symbol of Islam showing the horns of the moon pointing upward.

 

The mother/moon goddess Hathor (Isis or Auset) nursing the young Heru or Horus. In this image, the father (Osiris) is invicible, but his presence manifests in his young son, Heru (i.e., Babatunde). On top of Isis' head sits the sun god, Ra in between the cow horns, which symbolically represents the Crescent  moon.

The Knights Templar. These were a group of mercenaries hired by the barons of Europe to help the Byzantine christains in their fights against the monist Turks (i.e., Saracen, Seljukian and later the Ottoman) during the crusades. There were 6 crusades total. The Knights templar were initially allowed to live side by side with the monist Turks in Jerusalem, but were later kicked out. The Knights templar migrated from Jerusalem to Scotland, with the knowledge gained from the Monist Turks and the Moors, they developed  the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.


References:

 Martin Bernal: “Black Athena – vol I.” (1987)

Walter, Williams: “The Historical Origin of Islam.” (2001)

Walter, Williams: “The Historical Origin of Christianity.” (1992)

Zachary P. Gremillion: "The African Origin of Freemasonry." (2005)

Gladys M. Draycott: "Mahomet founder of Islam."  (1916)

Ojo 2/27/13.

The Metaphysics of IFA – IFA as an infinite geometric series generator.

IFA, or I Ching as it's known in the East, is formulated on the principle of harmonious duality/contrast (i.e., binary principle). The “absolute one” due to vibration and light frequency patterns manifests itself in a material world where harmonious duality/contrast is a universal reality. When a thing, anything material, is paired with its perfect antithesis, an infinite series is generated – note that any material thing that occupies space carries the marker of the “absolute one.” For example, when masculine and feminine principles are paired, an infinite series of lives is generated. Similarly, when electricity and magnetism are paired, an infinite series of sine waves is generated at a speed equals to the speed of light.

In the case of Ifa, when odd and even counts are paired, an infinite series of numbers is generated. And this infinite series of numbers is called “ODU IFA.” You can easily demonstrate this thesis by standing between two opposing mirrors. Your image in the first mirror is a perfect antithesis of your image in the second mirror, generating an infinite series of images of yourself – cool huh? We know that number 8 is the original marking of IFA divination system, which when permutated using odd and even counts generates an infinite geometric series of ODU i.e., 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64+.....1/2^n.

The Geometric series of a bouncing ball.

Lastly, not only can the infinite geometric series of IFA system (i.e., ODU) encapsulate all actions and outcomes in the universe, it can also be tested for convergence and many other operations. My question is  If IFA is an infinite geometric series generator, can it compute or does it compute with the speed of light?

The circle represents the infinite cosmos - the never ending flow of time, where all possibilities of past, present and future are contained. The interlocking 8 symbol or double helix represents infinity or the never ending flow of electromagnetic wave. (i.e., Kundalini energy or serpent). The number 8 is a cosmic key, which is the original 8 markings of IFA divination system. This octagonal key can open a portal to any location and any time.The upper half of the circle is heaven and the lower half is earth – as above so below. The inverted pyramids further represent the truth of "as above, so below" - reflection. The sine waves on top and under the pyramids represent roaring energy flow. 

Ojo 2/15/13.

Arabic as an Afro-Asiatic Language - Myth or Reality?

Arabic-Alphabet Chart

According to the traditional language classification, Arabic is classified amongst the Afro-Asiatic language cluster. However, looking at the linguistic structure of Arabic and comparing it with the rest of the African language clusters, I'm inclined to say that no link exists between Arabic and the rest of the African language clusters. If Arabic is not an Afro-Asiatic language, so what is it? Arabic is actually a Turkic language form that was brought by the Seljukian Turks, who originally came from Turkestan, via Iran, into North and North East Africa (i.e., Middle East) around the later part of 11^th century A.D.

The dominant language of the region before the arrival of the Turks was Greek. However, Greek language was gradually replaced with Arabic as the Seljukian Turks continued to invade the Byzantine Empire - the Empire which extended over North and North East Africa at this time. While the Arabic language is Turkic in its spoken form, it is actually African in its written form. What does this mean? It means that the Arabic script is 100 percent African. When the Seljukian Turks invaded Byzantine North East Africa, they brought with them a spoken language but not a written script or any form of writing system. Thus, they had to use Arabic script to transliterate their language. It is not uncommon for a people, with no writing script of their own, to use a borrowed script to write down their language. For example, the Yoruba and Ibo people of present day Nigeria adopted Latin as a writitng script for their respective indigenous languages. 

There were three forms of writing system available in North and North East Africa at the time when the Seljukian Turks invaded, and they were all Pharaonic Egypt based – namely, Hieroglyphs, Phonetic I alphabet (i.e., Heratic), and Phonetic II alphabet (i.e., demotic). Thus, it was the Phonetic I and Phonetic II alphabets that were adapted by the Arab scholars to write down the Turkic language that they spoke, and is today called the Arabic script. The Arabic alphabet today comprises of 18 letter shapes, and thus by adding one, two, or three dots to letters with similar phonetic characters a total of 28 letters is obtained (Walter Willians, 2001).

Let’s now juxtapose Arabic and some African language clusters to fully understand the argument presented above.

For example let’s look at the word “spirit.”

In Coptic language, the word “spirit” or “soul” is bai.

In Mbochi (Congo)           it is        :     ba (to be in spirit)

Bambara (Mali)               it is        :   be (to have spirit or to exist)

Pharaonic Egypt              it is        :   ba (spirit or soul)

Arabic                              it is        :  nafs (soul, essence, or being)

Note the divergence of Arabic in the cluster.

Let’s look at the word “bad.”

In Coptic                            it is         :   bane or bani (bad)

In Wolof (Senegal)            it is         :   bon (bad)

Bambara (Mali)                 it is         :   bone (bad luck)

Pharaonic Egypt                it is         :   bin (bad)

Arabic                                it is         :   sar, sayyi (bad)

Note the divergence of Arabic in the cluster.

Let’s look at “Mother”

In Coptic                             it is        :   mau, maau, meu

In Yoruba (Nigeria)            it is         :   ma ma

In Bambara (Mali)             it is         :   ma

Pharaonic Egypt                it is         :   me.t (mother)

Arabic                                it is         :   Umm

Note the divergence of Arabic in the cluster.

Let’s examine “To love”

In Coptic                             it is         :   mere, melli, meri

In Wolof (Senegal)             it is         :   mar (to love madly)

In Luo                                 it is         :   mer (to be in accord with)

Pharaonic Egypt                it is         :   mr

Arabic                                it is         :   habba
Hebrew                              it is         :   Ahab (Love)

Note how Hebrew and Arabic converge with each other, but diverge from the rest of the African language cluster.

Lastly, let’s look at one of the rare examples where Arabic actually converges with the African language cluster.

Let’s look at “Water”

In Coptic                             it is        :   mo, mi

In Yoruba (Nigeria)            it is         :   omi

In Benin(Edo, Nigeria)       it is         :   omi

Pharaonic Egypt                it is         :   mw

Tiv (Nigeria)                      it is         :   ma

Arabic                                it is         :   ma 

 Note the convergence of Arabic with the other African languages in the cluster.

From the examples given above, and from many more examples that are not recited here, it is obvious that Arabic language diverges from the rest of the African language clusters. And thus, Arabic is not an Afro-Asiatic language. As I have shown in my last example above, in a few cases, Arabic language does converge with the African language clusters, this is due probably to borrowing and racial mixing that has occurred over the centuries. Classifying Arabic as an Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic language is a misnomer. Arabic and Hebrew are related languages and perhaps came from the same source. In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to classify them as Semitic languages, but not Afro-Asiatic. On a final note, I'm calling on young scholars, more specifically young African scholars, to desist from using the scriptures (i.e., Torah, Bible and Koran) to formulate African history. The intention of these books is to confuse you about ancient world history, especially African history. Religious texts lack historicity, and should not be used under any circumstances as history books.

Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, and Latin placed side by side - notice the similarities. They all came from one source, Pharaonic Egyptian script i.e., Phonetic.

The Alphabet Chart
Showing the first writing system by the Egyptians: the hieroglyphic, hieratic-demotic and the phonetic. It's from the phonetic Pharaonic Egyptian alphabet that the Greek/Latin alphabets developed.

References:

Molefi, Asante: “African Intellectual Heritage – a book of sources.” (1996)

Anta, Diop: “Civilization or Barbarism.” (1991)

Martin Bernal: “Black Athena – vol I.” (1987)

Walter, Williams: “The Historical Origin of Islam.” (2001)

Walter, Williams: “The Historical Origin of Christianity.” (1992)

Ojo 2/12/13.

Common Origin Model and the Dilemma of African Scholars in the New World Order

African intellectuals generally agree on the presence of ancient African civilizations, but they often fail to reach a general consensus on their common origin. It appears to me that many African intellectuals and even some of their Western counterparts cannot seem to distinguish between the Niger and the Nile valley civilizations on one hand and the Tigris and the Euphrates civilizations on the other. So, it is not surprising that the men on the street in Africa today are totally confused about the origin of the ancient African civilizations because African intellectuals have failed in their duty to establish one for them.

Many Africans, especially the religious ones, often attempt to plug in their ancient history into the Abrahamic religious mythologies. The more Afrocentric ones, however, utterly reject “Abrahamic origin model” in favor of “ethnic-oriented model.” The problem with the “ethnic-oriented model” is that it is too narrow and it is directed more towards culture and ethnicity than civilization – it is like using the narrowest possible definition of one’s cultural identity to proclaim one’s civilization. For example, if you proudly proclaim your Fanti identity of the Akan people of ancient Ghana and reject any affiliations with Egypto-Cush and Babylonian civilizations; then, you need to ask yourself about the origin of Akan people and the ancient Ghanaian civilization because being a Fanti is an ethnicity not a civilization.

Why is a common origin of civilization very important? A common origin of civilization is very important because it gives people a common historical reference point - every invention and creation has a common origin. The lack of consensus on the common origin of ancient African civilizations, however, has generated “identity misnomers” among Africans today. Many Africans today walk around calling themselves: black Hebrew/Israelites, Jews, Canaanites, Sumerians, Moors, Arabs, Kemites, and other ridiculous misnomers. When a common origin is finally established, there would be no need for all these different misnomers, only one out of the many would be sufficient. 

To establish a common origin for the ancient African cultures and civilizations, one must first define what constitutes ancient Africa and Culture. Firstly, in the ancient times, Africa was generally referred to as Abyssinia, Ethiopia, or Cush and its reach extended from the Southern Coast of ancient India to the North Eastern coast of Africa. John Garnier, in his book “The worship of the Dead: or the origin and nature of Pagan Idolatry” stated that the old Sanskrit geographers spoke of two lands of Cush, or Ethiopia, which they called “Cusha Dwipa” within and “Cusha Dwipa” without. “Cusha Dwipa” within covered the borders of ancient India and “Cusha Dwipa” without included Arabia, Western Asia, Syria from the mouth of the Nile, the countries on the Euphrates and Tigris, a large part of the North of the Persian Gulf and an extended region in Africa. It is worth mentioning that the old Sanskrit geographers applied the term “Cusha-Dwipa” without to very nearly the same regions which the ancient Greeks (i.e., Herodotus, Strabo etc.) described as Ethiopia. Drusilla Dunjee, in her book "The wonderful Ethiopians of the ancient Cushite empire," remarked that Egypt and Chaldean were sister colonies of a parent state. She further remarked: "the earliest civilized inhabitant of Chaldean were Sumerians. The Sanskrit books called Chaldean one of the divisions of Cusha-Dwipa...These Sumerians were the inventors of the Cuneiform system of writing, which was later adopted by their Semitic conquerors.  Their langauge was still cultivated until the time of Alexander." John Denison Baldwin, in his book "Pre-historic nations," remarked that it was generally admitted by the ancient Greek scholars and historians that a people of the Cushite or Ethiopian race were the first civilizers and builders throughout Western Asia, the shores of the Mediterranean, Eastern Africa, and the Nile Valley.

So, based on the unbiased ancient history and information available to us, we now know that the “Middle East” of today was part of North East Africa in antiquity. We also know that Ethiopia was divided into two Dwipas: the Eastern Ethiopia (i.e., ancient India) and the Western Ethiopia (Western Asia/North East Africa). And, lastly we know that the Tigris and the Euphrates civilizations were a derivative of the Egypto-Cushite civilization. In fact, the earliest settlers of “Babylon” and the builders of “Mesopotamia” were Cushites. The ancient historians described the Cushites as wonderful builders with no interest in homeless nomadism, whose traces reveal so plainly the habit of fixed life and the spirit of developed nationality (John Baldwin, “Pre-historic nations”). While I acknowledge some racial admixture in Western Asia (i.e., Middle East), which later gave rise to the Semitic stock (i.e., Arabs/Hebrews), I maintain that the racial admixture occurred much later and that the original inhabitants of Western Asia and the builders of the ancient Western Asian civilizations were Cushites. Although, the Semites are largely credited today for the creation and the development of the Tigris and the Euphrates civilizations; however, this was an attempt by the racist scholars of 19^th century school of thought to bastardize and falsify ancient African history. Not only did these scholars erroneously attribute the creation and the development of the Tigris and the Euphrates civilizations to the Semites, they sparingly conceded even the African origin of the Niger Valley civilization, and their scholarly analyses often eschewed the African origin of the Nile Valley civilization.

There is no question that the ancient African History, more specifically in the Arabian Peninsula or in the Asia Minor, has been falsified. However, you can begin to unravel some of these falsifications when you study the history of Cushite Arabs like: Bilal Ibn al-Habashi, Al-Jahiz, Antar the Lion etc. While the falsifiers of the ancient African history often attempt to reduce the background of these sons of Cush to servitude and slavery, it is very difficult for the falsifiers to undermine the intellectual contributions of these gentlemen to the Arabian history and civilization – their literary masterpieces are popular in the “Middle East” and Europe even today.

In conclusion, Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop argued that it was politically important to demonstrate the cultural and linguistic unity of Africa, and to base this unity on the Egyptian past. He further argued that Africans must link the origin of their ancient cultures and civilizations to Egyto-Cushite civilization just the same way Europeans linked the origin of their Western civilization to Greece; even though, Greek culture was heavily influenced by the Egypto-Cushite culture. Will the African intellectuals and scholars listen to Diop?

Note
Cusha-Dwipa within was ancient India
Cusha-Dwipa without was Africa proper, which covered part of the Mediterranean, Middle East and East Africa.
Many ancient geographers and historians said that people from Cusha-Dwipa within emigrated to Cusha Dwipa without(the Middle East and North East africa) to build civilizations, others said it was the other way around, and some argued that the people from the two Dwipas were one and the same.
Asia Minor or Western Asia was part of North East Africa in antiquity, but is now called the Middle East.
The people generally called "Arabs" today are made up of: Semites, Africans, Turks, Greeks and Romans. The word"Arab" is not a race, but a linguistic categorization (i.e., Arabic speakers) - same can be said of the word "Jew."