THE NEW CHRONOLOGY

The acceptable standard of historical methodology dictates that history has to be established based on veritable time and space. Time tells us when an event occurs while space tells us where an event occurs. Together, they form a complete coordinate system of history, in which time is tracked using different astronomical methods (solar and lunar eclipses), while space is located based on archeological and linguistic evidentiary facts.

The B.C/A.D conventional-timing-system (i.e., the Western Calendaring System) was formulated based on the astronomical manual (i.e. stellar/lunar catalog) of PTOLEMY ALMAGEST (a.k.a Ptolemy Megiste). So expectedly, the chronology of the entire history of almost all the classical civilizations, from ancient Egypt to the Ottoman Empire, follows the B.C/A.D conventional-timing-system.

However, the B.C/A.D conventional-timing-system is erroneous because the Almagest’s astronomical manual on which it’s formulated has now been found to be defective.  A brilliant Russian mathematician, Anatoly Fomenko, while calculating a certain coefficient D in the theory of lunar motion, found out that the standard Almagest’s time coordinates he relied upon in his calculation were inaccurate.

In other words, when Fomenko plugged-in standard Almagest’s time coordinates into his equation, he found that the lunar motion violated the law of universal gravitation. But when he recalibrated the Almagest’s time coordinates and plugged-in the new coordinates into his equation, the lunar motion complied as it should be with the law of universal gravitation. 

While Fomenko’s findings have already reverberated through the academic corners of the world, his findings will have profound implications for how we view the history of the world; the history of religion, and the chronology of ancient dynasties and epochs (see http://www.chronologia.org/en/struggle.html).

In view of Fomenko’s findings, Fomenko’s chronologists have now concluded the following:

1. Ptolemy Almagest astronomical manual, though mathematically sound, was compiled in 16th and 17th centuries from astronomical data of the 9th through 16th centuries and not in the 1st century as now implied in the traditional narratives.

2.  Historians and translators often "assign" different dates and locations to different accounts of the same historical events, creating multiple "phantom copies" of these events.

3. The B.C/A.D conventional or ecclesiastical chronology was largely manufactured by Joseph Justus Scaliger, and his Jesuit comrade, Dionysius Petavius, and represents a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360.

4. No single document in existence can be reliably dated earlier than the 11th century.

5. Histories of Ancient Rome, Greece and dynastic Egypt were crafted during the Renaissance by humanists and clergy - mostly on the basis of documents of their own making.

6. The history of religions runs as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century), Bacchic Christianity (11th-12th century, before and after JC), JC Christianity (12th-16th century) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam.

7. The well-known horoscope in The Book of Revelation, dated to 25 September - 10 October 1486, was compiled by cabbalist Johannes Reuchlin.

In conclusion, Fomenko’s scientific chronology supports my view of Abrahamic religion and history in general. 

DOES "AMEN" MEAN "SO BE IT?"

The Christian patriarchs refer to the ancient-Egyptians as pagans. However, if the ancient-Egyptians were indeed pagans, why then do Christians end their prayers with "Amen," who's clearly an Egyptian deity?

The Christian's line of defense is that the word "Amen" is Hebrew not Egyptian, meaning "So be it" in Hebrew. The only problem with this line of defense is that when we examine Revelation 3:14, we can clearly see that "Amen" does not mean "so be it" but rather a deity. 

Enclosed is the content of Revelation 3:14 - THESE ARE THE WORDS OF THE AMEN, THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WITNESS, THE RULER OF GOD'S CREATION.

Here is Revelation 3:14 again, substituting the phrase "so be it" for "Amen." - 

THESE ARE THE WORDS OF THE "SO BE IT" THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WITNESS, THE RULER OF GOD'S CREATION.

Clearly, the verse is unintelligible having substituted the phrase "so be it" for "Amen." But this should not be the case if indeed the two have the same meaning.

It can't be clearer from Revelation 3:14 above that the writer of that verse was referring to a proper noun "Amen" or "Amen-Ra" not a phrase "so be it." In the Egyptian pantheon, Amen-Ra is the visible manifestation of the divine wisdom, without which we cannot live. In other words, Amen-Ra is the ruler of divine creation, which is consistent with what the writer of Revelation 3:14 wrote.

Amen does not mean so be it. Amen or Amen-Ra is an ancient Egyptian deity whose name the Christians had co-opted to end their prayers.  

NEW AGE HUMANISTS & QUANTUM MECHANICS

It has become a fad for the new age humanists to dump the subject of "consciousness" on quantum mechanics or at least try to explain it away using quantum physics.

There is no denying the existence of "spirit" or even "consciousness." However, the unpredictable behavior of the electron in the sub-atomic level, verified by Heisenberg and double slit experiment, cannot necessarily be ascribed to "consciousness" or to the minds of the researchers. I'm convinced that the unpredictability in the sub-atomic behavior of the electron is due to light-induced consciousness rather than the minds of the researchers.

In the double slit experiment, in the absence of light; that is when the the researchers are not looking or paying attention, the electron behavior is predictable. However, in the presence of light; that is when the researchers are looking and paying attention, the electron behavior becomes unpredictable. Why?

 Well in the absence of light, electron has no information, no consciousness, and certainly no free will - note, without light there's no observation. In the presence of light, however, electron has light-induced consciousness, information and free will. I contend that as consciousness-induced free will makes the behavior of matter unpredictable on the material level, the light-induced free will makes the behavior of electron unpredictable in the sub-atomic level.

All in all, free will is a burden on matter; it's the source of randomness and unpredictability in our universe.

PROGRESSIVE SECULARISM

If you went back in time to 19th Century Europe, there's a high probability you would land in the middle of a hot debate between the secularists and the Christian autocrats! 

It was a perfect era for the secularists for they finally garnered enough cojones to challenge the Christian autocrats to historicize the biblical scriptures. This unprecedented intellectual challenge is evidenced by the recorded volume of literature written about the historical origin of Christianity at that time. 

As though it was not a herculean task, the Christian autocrats accepted the challenge, but failed miserably in historicizing Christianity in a convincing manner. The people responded in kind; they left the church in droves. That was the death of religious autocracy, and the emergence of "progressive secularism" in Europe.

Africa of today is reminiscent of Europe that I just described! You stand a better chance of making millions in Africa today, being a pastor, selling indulgences to people than a production engineer. Yes, it's that bad!

So as a secularist, when people ask you to leave religion alone and talk about science and economics, tell them it's impossible to teach logic and economics to people who believe they can get rich just by drinking "holy water." 

UNVEILING MUHAMMED & MUHAMMEDANISM

In this short essay, I'll go against traditional historical narratives, and show you the true human-historical origin of the name "Muhammed."

Thales of Miletus is said to be the first Greek philosopher, who studied in ancient Egypt. Thales reportedly believed that there's only one kind of stuff out of which everything was made, and that stuff he said was water - this is called Thales doctrine! In ancient Egypt, where Thales supposedly schooled, the word for water was "Mu." So expectedly, the earliest followers of Thales' doctrine are called Muists, and their doctrine (I.e. the belief that water is the fundamental substance) is called Muism. 

Plato was perhaps the most famous substance Munist in history. As a point in fact, by 5th Century AD, Platonism and Munism had become synonymous, and Neoplatonists (i.e. followers of Plato or his doctrines) had carried these two philosophical concepts into the "Roman Ionosphere." Having entered the Latin lexicon, the word "Muism" was corrupted to "Monism" - linguistically the letter U and O are interchangeable!

Neoplatonic-Monism spread like wildfires out of Rome into Moorish occupied Spain. Moorish heavyweight scholars, men like Ibn Al-Farabi and Ibn Al-Arabi, were pleasantly receptive to the concept of Monism or Munism, perhaps because they're Neoplatonists themselves, and they began to add the tittle "Muhammed," "Muhammad" or "Mohammed" to their names - remember, the word "MU" means water in ancient Egyptian; the word "hammed" or "hammad" means praise worthiness in Arabic, and the two words when combined means: water is praiseworthy!

It's not implausible that it was from Moorish Spain that the concept of the fundamental oneness of MU (water) or MUHAMMEDANISM would spread to the rest of the world. And just as the earliest followers of Muism were called " Munists," the earliest followers of MUHAMMEDANISM were called "Muhammedans" or "Muslims."

If you're a fast thinker, you must have noticed two things: 

1. How the oneness attribute of "MU" or water was clearly foisted on Allah.

2. How Muhammed is a personification of WATER just as Jesus is a personification of the SUN.

If you don't believe me try going without the sun and water for a month and see what happens - 70-75 percent of human body is water, and our solar system cannot exist without the  sun. 

In conclusion, Arabic word for water is Ma, and the Hebrew word for water is Ma'yim, these two words are obvious corruption of the ancient Egyptian original word for water "MU." In the Abrahamic philosophical thought process, demiurge is a self-creating almighty being. However, in the African/Pharaonic philosophical thought process that early Neoplatonists and many Sufis embraced, demiurge is not self-creating at all. Demiurge was brought into being by "NU" or "MU" (I.e. water); hence, you have the primordial water of "NU" or "MU."

I'm convinced that it was this primordial "MU" that Neoplatic-Sufis and other scholars in Moorish Spain and Baghdad used to praise as Muhammed (note that the word hammed means praiseworthy in Arabic), and this I consider the reason why many early Sufi scholars added the alias "Muhammed" to their names.

Consequently, the concept of Muhammedanism or "Muslism" is an abstract concept derived from the concept of the primordial water of "MU" or "NU."