Now, before we reveal the answers to those questions, let me first explain why I am writing this. There is still a lot of arguing about Christianity, its history and effect on people of African descent. I recently wrote an article entitled Mental Slavery of Christianity: Its Origin, Development and The Challenge of Cognitive Dissonance to the African Ancestry Movement From the Point of View of Neuroscience and Behavior Change. Rather than helping more people escape from the mental slavery of Christianity, it, of course, provoked even more cognitive dissonance from Christians. And then I realized that part of the problem is because people don’t know the origin of Christianity and therefore, are not properly oriented in order to interpret its meaning and effect. A Balanta woman informed me that in the literary criticism field, this is called “Authorial Intent” vs “Reader Response”....”a very potent dynamic that can breed the gravest of misinterpretations or the most precise understanding of what has been communicated.” Let me illustrate.
In the above example, when asked, “who is right?”, most people answer that it is a matter of perspective. There is no right or wrong answer. Such people are left in a world of relative meaning and malaise. Truth is obscured and everyone’s opinion or perspective on a subject is given equal weight. Again, this creates the gravest of misinterpretations, particularly when it comes to comprehending the phenomenon of Christianity.
There is a solution to the above, however. And the solution is simple. The solution is: ask the person who made the mark on the ground. Let me explain.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion or perspective, which is relative. However, the reason they are arguing is because someone put the mark there on the ground. Now, the best way to get answers is by asking questions. Why? Why did someone make this mark on the ground? For what purpose?
Well, you get the best answer to these questions, to any question, by going to the source.
Now, suppose the person who put the mark on the ground says this: “This spot is the nine mile mark on the trail. You are nine miles from the village.” In such a scenario, you can see that although the person saying “6” is entitled to his perspective, he loses the complete essence, value and understanding of what he is observing. He is deprived of valuable information.
The point of the riddle is to emphasize the value of history and original sources. If the two of them ask the person who put the mark on the ground, it will end the debate. They guy can say, “oh, from where I was standing it looks like a six, but NOW I AM PROPERLY ORIENTED to interpret and make sense of what I am looking at.” Now the debate is over.
When people fail to study and understand the origin of things, they can’t have the proper perspective. History helps us orientate our experiences so that we can move beyond mere appearances, perceptions and speculations.
As far as our understanding of history, African Americans haven’t been able to look at history properly orientated because, prior to genetic testing through African Ancestry, we couldn’t identify WHO WE ARE. At best, most of us simply knew that we were from somewhere in “Africa” and we studied African history generally. Now, however, we can know exactly which people we are from, who are ancestors, and, using haplogroup migration studies and a re-reading of African and world history, we can, for the first time, tell OURstory, properly oriented. This I have done in Balanta B’urassa My Sons, Those Who Resist Remain Volumes 1 -3.
Likewise, we must study the origin of Christianity and the Jesus Story. Here I am referring to the origin of who actually invented the character called Jesus Christ and wrote the Gospels. Why did they invent the character of Jesus and for what purpose? Without understanding this, the “authorial intent”, one is only left with the “reader’s response”, which I have shown in my previous article, is a programmed brainwashing via brutality, terrorism and trauma that produces a modified and imprinted brain incapable of thinking outside of the programming. This, of course, produces the gravest misinterpretation of Christianity as something called “Truth”. However, the following account of the origin of the Jesus Christ folklore will lead to a precise understanding.
The following is an excerpt from Balanta B’urassa My Sons, Those Who Resist Remain Volume II
The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus
My sons, you would do well now to read the book, Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill or watch the video documentary of the same name, if you want to understand the actual creation of the Jesus-centered Christian religion of the Roman Empire. According to Atwill,
“I shall show that intellectuals working for Titus Flavius, the second of the three Flavian Caesars, created Christianity. Their main purpose was to replace the xenophobic Jewish Messianism that waged war against the Roman Empire with a version of Judaism that would be obedient to Rome.
One of the individuals involved with the creation of the Gospels was the first-century historian Flavius Josephus, who, as he related it, led a fabulous life. He was born in 37 C.E. into the royal family of Judea, the Maccabees. Like Jesus, Josephus was a child prodigy who astounded his elders with his knowledge of Judaic law. Josephus also claimed to have been a member of each of the Jewish sects of his era, the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Essenes. . . .
After the destruction of the Maccabean state, the Sicarii, a new movement against Roman and Herodian control, emerged. This was a movement of lower-class Jews, originally called Zealots, who continued the Maccabees’ religious struggle against the control of Judea by outsiders and sought to restore “Eretz Israel.”
The efforts of the Sicarii reached a climax in 66 C.E. when they succeeded in driving the Roman forces from the country. The Emperor Nero ordered Flavius Vespasian to enter Judea with a large army and end the revolt. The violent struggle that ensued left the country devastated, and concluded when Rome captured the Judean fortress Masada in 73 C.E. . . .
When the Jewish rebellion against Rome broke out in 66 C.E., though he had no described military background and believed the cause hopeless, Josephus was given command of the revolutionary army of Galilee. Taken captive, he was brought before the Roman general Vespasian, to whom he presented himself as a prophet. At this point, God, rather conveniently, spoke to Josephus and informed him that his favor had switched from the Jews to the Romans. Josephus then claimed the Judaism’s messianic prophecies foresaw not a Jewish Messiah, but Vespasian, whom Josephus predicted would become the ‘lord of all mankind.’ . . .
In the midst of the Judean war, forces loyal to the Flavian family in Rome revolted against the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors, Vitellius, and seized the capital. Vespasian returned to Rome to be proclaimed emperor, leaving his son Titus in Judea to finish off the rebels. Following the war, the Flavians shared control over this region between Egypt and Syria with two families of powerful Hellenized Jews: the Herods and the Alexanders.
These three families shared a common financial interest in preventing any future revolts. They also shared a long-standing and intricate personal relationship that can be traced to the household of Antonia, the mother of the Emperor Claudius. Antonia employed Julius Alexander Lysimachus, the Abalarch, or ruler, of the Jews of Alexandria, as her financial steward in around 45 C.E.
After this came to pass, so to speak, and Vespasian was proclaimed emperor, he rewarded Josephus’ clairvoyance by adopting him. Thus, the Jewish rebel Josephus bar Matthias became Flavius Josephus, the son of Caesar. He became an ardent supporter of Rome’s conquest of Judea, and when Vespasian returned to Rome to be crowned emperor, Josephus stayed behind to assist the new emperor’s son Titus with the siege of Jerusalem.
After Jerusalem had been destroyed, Josephus took up residence within the Flavian court at Rome, where he enjoyed the patronage of Vespasian and the subsequent Flavian emperors, Titus and Domitian. It was while he was living in Rome that Josephus wrote his two major works, Wars of the Jews, a description of the 66-73 C.E. war between the Romans and the Jews, and Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jewish people. . . .
Though the three families had been able to put down the revolt, they still faced a potential threat. Many Jews continued to believe that God would send a Messiah, a son of David, who would lead them against the enemies of Judea. Flavius Josephus records that what had “most elevated” the Sicarii to fight against Rome was their belief that God would send a Messiah to Israel who would lead his faithful to military victory. Though the Flavians, Herods, and Alexanders had ended the Jewish revolt, the families had not destroyed the messianic religion of the Jewish rebels. The families needed to find a way to prevent the Zealots from inspiring future uprisings through their belief in a coming warrior Messiah.
Then someone from within this circle had an inspiration, one that changed history. The way to tame messianic Judaism would be to simply transform it into a religion that would cooperate with the Roman Empire. To achieve this goal would require a new type of messianic literature.
Thus, what we know as the Christian Gospels were created. In a convergence unique in history, the Flavians, Herods, and Alexanders brought together the elements necessary for the creation and implementation of Christianity. They had the financial motivation to replace the militaristic religion of the Sicarii, the expertise in Judaism and philosophy necessary to create the Gospels, and the knowledge and bureaucracy required to implement a religion (the Flavians created and maintained a number of religions other than Christianity). Moreover, these families were the absolute rulers over the territories where the first Christian congregations began.
To produce the Gospels required a deep understanding of Judaic literature. The Gospels would not simply replace the literature of the old religion but would be written in such a way as to demonstrate that Christianity was the fulfillment of the prophecies of Judaism and had therefore grown directly from it. To achieve these effects, the Flavian intellectuals made use of a technique used throughout Judaic literature—typology. The genre of typology is not often used today. In its most basic sense, typology is simply the use of prior events to provide form and context for subsequent ones – similar to using an archetype or stereotype to create a new character in literature. The typology in the Gospels is very specific – the system uses repeating names, locations, or concepts in the same sequence.
Typology is used throughout Judaic literature as a way of transferring information and meaning from one story to another, to show the pattern of the “hand of God” at work.
Josephus’ histories are of great significance to Christianity. Virtually all that we know regarding the social context of the New Testament is derived from them. Without these works, the very dating of the events of the New Testament would be impossible. . . .
Josephus’ histories provided Jesus with historical documentation, a fact that is widely known. They also provided Jesus with another kind of documentation; a fact largely forgotten. Early Christians believed that the events Josephus described in Wars of the Jews proved that Jesus had been able to see into the future. It is difficult to find even one early Christian who taught another position. Church scholars such as Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Cyprian were unanimous in proclaiming that Josephus’ description of the conquest of Judea by Titus Flavius in Wars of the Jews proved that Jesus’ prophecies had come to pass. As Eusebius wrote in 325 C.E.:
‘If anyone compares the words of our Savior with the other accounts of the historian [Josephus] concerning the whole war, how can anyone fail to wonder and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Savior were truly divine and marvelously Strange.’
The authors of the Gospels used typology to create the impression that events from the lives of prior Hebrew prophets were types of events from Jesus’ life. In doing so, they were trying to convince their readers that their story of Jesus was a continuation of the divine relationship that existed between the Hebrew prophets and God. At the very beginning of the Gospels, the authors created a crystal-clear typological relationship between Jesus and Moses. The authors placed this sequence at the beginning of their work to show the reader how the real meaning of the New Testament will be revealed. . . .
By using scenes from Judaic literature as types for events in Jesus’ ministry, the authors hoped to convince their readers that the Gospels were a continuation of the Hebrew literature that had inspired the Sicarii to revolt and that, therefore, Jesus was the Messiah whom the rebels were hoping God would send them. In this way, they would strip messianic Judaism of its power to spawn insurrections, since the Messiah was no longer coming but had already come. Further, the Messiah was not the xenophobic military leader that the Sicarii were expecting, but rather a multiculturist who urged his followers to “turn the other cheek.”
If the Gospels achieved only the replacement of the militaristic messianic movement with a pacifistic one, they would have been one of the most successful pieces of propaganda in history. But the authors wanted even more. They wanted not merely to pacify the religious warriors of Judea but to make them worship Caesar as a god. And they wanted to inform posterity that they had done so.
The populations of the Roman provinces were permitted to worship in any way they wished, with one exception; they had to allow Caesar to be worshiped in their temples. This was incompatible with monotheistic Judaism. At the end of the 66–73 C.E. war, Flavius Josephus recorded that no matter how Titus tortured the Sicarii, they refused to call him “Lord.” To circumvent the Jews’ religious stubbornness, the Flavians therefore created a religion that worshiped Caesar without its followers knowing it.
To achieve this, they used the same typological method they had used to link Jesus to Moses, creating parallel concepts, sequences, and locations. They created Jesus’ entire ministry as a “type” of the military campaign of Titus. In other words, events from Jesus’ ministry are symbolic representations of events from Titus’ campaign. To prove that these typological scenes were not accidental, the authors placed them in the same sequence and in the same locations in the Gospels as they had occurred in Titus’ campaign.
The parallel scenes were designed to create another story line than the one that appears on the surface. This typological story line reveals that the Jesus who interacted with the disciples following the crucifixion, the actual Jesus that Christians have unwittingly worshiped for 2,000 years, was Titus Flavius. . . .
I show that a contiguous block of text from Luke was typologically linked to a contiguous section of Josephus’ history. In fact, virtually all of the events of Jesus’ Galilean ministry in that Gospel were typological representations of events of the Flavians’ military campaign. The events in the Gospel were mapped to Titus’ campaign in the same sequence that Josephus recorded them. One conclusion that falls out of this analysis is that the Gospels’ character ‘Jesus Christ’ was completely fictional.”
Byzantine Rule (323 -642 CE)
Moustafa Gadalla, in Exiled Egyptian: The Heart of Africa reveals the Romans and Early Christians in Egypt:
“Like the Ptolemies, Rome treated Egypt as a mere estate to be exploited for the benefit of the Roman rulers. They controlled Egypt by force . . . . The general pattern of Roman Egypt included a strong, centralized administration supported by a large military force. . . . There was an elaborate bureaucracy with an extended system of registrars and controls, and a social hierarchy with preferred treatment for the Hellenized population of the towns, over the rural and native Egyptian population. The Romans reinforced foreign settlement, by brining in more foreigners. The Jewish colony in Alexandria is said to have had a population of 1 million in the 1st century CE. . . .
An enormous burden of taxation was placed on the people of the Nile Valley. . . . the Egyptian rural population was assessed at a flat rate, without regard for income, age, or capacity for work. . . .
As expected, when people cannot pay their taxes, they must abandon the land, since no amount of torture by tax collectors will change the fact that one has nothing with which to pay.
In common with the rest of the Roman Empire, Egypt suffered from a general depression brought about by over-taxation and the consequent abandonment of farmlands.
Since Egypt provided the food for the Roman Empire, it followed that when the economy of Egypt collapsed, the Empire went hungry and therefore collapsed too. The same story was repeated with every invader of Egypt.
The Romans reinforced foreign settlement by inviting more foreigners and giving them land. This, together with land appropriation, over-taxation, and the loss of freedom and pride, led to the acceleration of Egyptians leaving their farmlands. . . .
When the Romans arrived in Alexandria, they gave preferred treatment to the Jews. Augustus granted self-government to the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria. This caused great consternation among the Greeks, who had founded the city. The city’s contentious population was involved in revolts against Roman control, from the 1st century CE onward. Fighting soon broke out, first between Greeks and Jews, then with the Romans’ participation when they tried to separate the two.
Christianity arrived early in Alexandria, from Judaea and Syria. The Romans encouraged and facilitated more immigration from Syria to Egypt.
The history of the spread of Christianity in Egypt cannot be traced in detail in either the archeological remains or the literary evidence. According to a one-sided Christian tradition, which goes back to the 4th century CE, the Church at Alexandria was founded by Mark, the evangelist. This claim is generally dismissed as fiction and pro-Christian propaganda.
As shown earlier, native Egyptians hated the foreign city of Alexandria, and its foreign inhabitants. Alexandria was nothing more than a foreign base in Egypt. Christians did not emerge as a noticeable cult, until about 190 CE, when Pantaenus founded the Christian doctrine school. The first patriarch at Alexandria who is said to have been concerned about converting the native Egyptians is Dionysius (247-264 CE). But there was no response, because Christian theology is contrary to Egyptian character.
Communal tensions between the city’s Jewish and Greek elements became more complex with the foundation of Christianity in Alexandria. Conflicts arose between and among Alexandria’s Christian, Jewish and traditional Egyptian communities over the desire of Christians to destroy everything that was contrary to their doctrine.
The Christians virulent bigotry was checked, in the beginning, by the officially imposed religious toleration of Rome.
Christian Rampage
In 312 CE, Christianity was made the official and only religion of the Roman Empire. A short time later, the Roman Empire split. Egypt became part of the Eastern (or Byzantine) Empire in 323 CE.
The decree that there be only one religious system (Christianity), and that anything else is untrue, is dictatorial. The Christian decree added to the economic and social disaster, which still remained from the earlier Roman rule.
Constantine’s declaration, to make Christianity the official religion of the empire, had two immediate effects on Egypt. Firstly, it allowed the Church to enhance the organization of its administrative structure and to acquire considerable wealth; and secondly, it allowed Christian fanatics to destroy the native Egyptian religious rights, properties and temples.
Here are a few examples of the Christian rampage in Egypt:
·During a visit to Egypt in 385 CE, the praetorian prefect of the east, Maternus Cynegius, closed the ancient Egyptian temples and forbade sacrifices to Min-Amen.
·When Theophilus was made Patriarch of Alexandria in 391 CE, he displayed tremendous zeal in destroying ancient Egyptian temples. A wave of destruction swept over the land of Egypt. Tombs were ravaged, walls of ancient monuments scraped, and statues toppled. In Alexandria, the famous statue of Serapis was burned and the Serapeum destroyed, along with its library. When Theophilus attempted to convert a temple of Dionysus in Alexandria into a church, rioting between non-Christians and Christians ensued, the former occupying the great Serapeum. The subsequent destruction of the temple was shamelessly advertised by Christians as symbolic of a great victory. It was a folly of fanaticism in the name of orthodoxy.
·The same year (391 CE) saw the beginning of legislation that aimed to outlaw ancient Egyptian rites and to close the temples. The laws helped the fanatic Christians destroy other temples.
No rational mind can accept that such destructive behavior led to ‘convince’ people to convert to any religion (Christianity), as advertised by the fanatics, no matter how rational it (Christianity) may appear to anyone.
The fanatic early Christians went on appropriating ancient Egyptian temples. In the 4th and 5th centuries, many ancient temples on the west bank of Ta-Apet (Thebes) were converted into monastic centers.
Hatshepsut’s Commemorative Temple was converted into Deir (Monastery) el Bahari.
Ptolemy III Temple was converted into Deir el Medina.
The Commemorative Temple of Ramses III was given the Christian name, ‘Medinat Habu’.
The Court of Amenhotep II in Luxor Temple on the east bank of Ta-Apet (Thebes) was similarly violated.
·In 415 CE under Theodosius II, Patriarch Cyril expelled the Jews of Alexandria form the city; and Hypatia, the learned and beautiful Neoplatonist was cruelly murdered.
Christian mobs forcefully took a part of the Temple of Het-Heru (Hathor) at Dendera in the middle of the 6th century CE, and built a new church, which was constructed between the Birth House and the Coronation House, using some of the blocks from the Birth House.
·Similarly, in Khmunu (Hermopolis) a Temple of Amon was occupied by Christians and had part of its interior turned into a chapel.
In addition to the violation of ancient Egyptian temples, the fanatic Christians adopted a new script called the Coptic language – basically demotic Egyptian written in Greek characters with a few additional letters – from about 300 CE. A non-Egyptian alphabet was intended for the use of those non-Egyptians who were schooled in the Greek language. This move had the effect of re-emphasizing the cultural divide between them and the true native Egyptians. . . .
There is no archaeological evidence, outside Alexandria, to substantiate the Christians’ overly exaggerated popularity claims . . . Their terroristic action, rampages, and disrespect for the native population can hardly win any popularity contest. To make Christianity the state religion did not lead (as expected) to people converting.
Accepting Christianity is to accept the Bible, which condemns ancient Egypt and establishes the Jews as God’s ‘chosen people’. It is totally incompatible with Egyptian history, nature, and traditions.
The Edict of Theodosius I (391 CE), to close the ancient Egyptian temples, caused people associated with temple activities to flee, along with all those who were threatened by the onslaught of the fanatic Christians.”
The Spread of Christianity in the Land of Ta-Nihisi: Meroe, Nobadae, Makuria and Alwa
Meanwhile, Chancellor Williams emphasizes,
“Africa was naturally among the first areas to which Christianity spread. It was next door to Palestine, and from the earliest times there had been the closest relations between the Jews and the Blacks, both friendly and hostile. The exchange of pre-Christian religious concepts took place easily and, due to the residence of so many ancient Jewish leaders in Ethiopia – Abraham, Joseph, and his brothers, Mary and Jesus. The great Lawgiver, Moses, was not only born in Africa but he was married to the daughter of an African priest. The pathway for the early Christian church in the Land of the Blacks had been made smooth many centuries before. . . .
We do not know how much significance should be read into the fact that Christianity began to spread in Ethiopia (Nubia or Cush) only after the destruction of the central Empire with the fall of Meroe. However, the most important development after the Empire passed was not the rise of Christianity, but the rise of the two Black states that picked up the mantle and staff of Ethiopia to carry on. These two states were Makuria and Alwa. . . .
The spread of Christianity in the land below the First Cataract gained momentum after the destruction of Ethiopia as an empire and its world-famous capital, the city of Meroe. Such a decline and fall of a nation, empire or civilization is never as short or sudden as the date given for the event suggested, in this case, 350 (A.D.). Many factors and forces operated over a long period of time before what can be called the ‘Great Age of Black Civilization’ came to a close.
How the black world was being adversely affected by both Asia and Europe may be better understood by a flashback to events following the end of black rule over Egypt with the close of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty in 656 B.C. The victorious Assyrians, you may recall, made Necho, a king from Sais in Lower Egypt, the governor-general, supported by Assyrian garrisons. This Necho was an Asian, but by this time the practice of calling all non-African residents Egyptians had been so firmly established that it had the weight of customary law. The Afro-Asians had failed to win recognition as the only Egyptians. Whites of all nationalities, though a minority, were often the dominant groups, ruling from their power base in Lower Egypt. Hence the continuing crises between the white Egyptians and the now more populous ‘coloured’ Egyptians. The Black Egyptians no longer counted as a power group north of the First Cataract.
When the Assyrians were finally expelled during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (664-525 B.C.), the foundations for permanent white Asian rule in Egypt had been firmly laid. From this period on, the wars for the control of Egypt were primarily wars of whites against whites. The internal corruption, jockeying for position compounded by the various partisan groups, reflected the weakness of the country in employing more and more foreign mercenary troops, especially the Greeks. These large incursions of Greeks and their allies formed the same kind of advance base for future Greek hegemony as did previous Asiatic peoples. The time was not yet. But it was the opportune time for the Persians to invade this much -invaded land and begin a rule in 525 B.C. that was to last 121 years. Since the administration of a conquered country by absentee kings is generally weak and open to revolt, the very long Persian rule in Egypt was doubtless due to an extraordinary line of strong kings and imperial administrators – Cambyses, Darius the Great and Darius II.
The end of Persian rule came in 404 B.C. when the Egyptian Greeks joined with the Egyptian nationalists in a ‘War of Liberation.’ The victory was short-lived. The Egyptians were in power only five years before the rebellion and independence were broken and Persian rule reestablished for another 64 years.
In 332, Alexander the Great arrived and, having broken the imperial power of Persia elsewhere, had no trouble taking over Egypt. A Greek was crowned Pharaoh in 334 B.C. as Ptolemy I.
The Greeks ruled Egypt for almost 300 years before the expansion of the Roman Empire into Egypt ended their dominion in 30 B.C. This was our ‘flashback point of departure, but before returning to the Ethiopian churches, the significance of what we have been reviewing as flashbacks should again be emphasized as a great issue. For we have been reviewing the last phase of the processes of Caucasianization in Egypt that were so thoroughgoing that both the Blacks and their history were erased from our memory: the Jewish rule, 500 years; the Assyrian interludes; the Persians, 185 years; the Greeks 274 years; the Romans, 700 years; the Arabs, 1,327 years – the long, long struggle to take from the Blacks whatever they had of human worth, their land and all their wealth therein; their bodies their souls, and their minds, was a process of steady depersonalization, dehumanization.
Yet Greece and Rome, having made the exclusion of the Blacks from Egypt permanent, appeared to have no conquest ambitions in the black country to the south. And Pax Romana checked the constant warfare between the two regions. The great wealth-producing trade with Ethiopia was promoted and what appeared to be a general détente prevailed. Indeed, whoever held the seacoasts, whether Asian, European or Egyptian, controlled world trade and put Ethiopia in a state of economic dependence, no matter how vast the flow of goods was from the south. Egypt was the middleman with the greater control over both volume and prices. Both the Greek and Roman rulers of Egypt left Ethiopia to play its own role. And we have seen what that role was during a thousand years of unbroken progress directed from Meroe.
Yet a storm cloud was threatening farther south as the Roman Legions withdrew from Egypt to help check the erosion of an over-extended world empire. We have noted that the Ethiopian Empire at the height of its greatness extended southward into Abyssinia (present day Ethiopia) and further, that as time passed, the Blacks were being hemmed in form almost all directions essential for survival. Now, for some centuries Arabs and Jews (the latter called ‘Solomonids’ by most historians) had been swarming into this southeastern region, pushing through the middle in such a way that even in Abyssinia the Blacks were pressed southward, always southwards! Egyptian history was repeating itself: The Asians and Mulattoes held Northern Abyssinia, with the center of power in the strategic kingdom of Axum. From Axum the Arabs prepared their forces for the destruction of a now weakening Ethiopian empire. The weakness, as usual, came from separatist movements struggling for power. It was the old-time factional fights among leaders who felt they must ‘rule or ruin’ . . . . But it was the situation for which the Axumite Arabs and their colored and Jewish allies were waiting. In 350 A.D., their armies destroyed Meroe, and an epoch in history ended.
Ethiopia was now split into three major states: Nobadae, bordering Egypt at the First Cataract; Makuria, the more powerful kingdom in the middle with its capital at Dongola; and Alwa (Alodia), another strong state south of Makuria or between Makuria and Axum. After the collapse of the central black empire in the fourth century, the Christian churches spread more rapidly through the now independent kingdoms. Even in the division of Ethiopia into smaller states, the process of ethnic transformation was obvious as it pressed southward from Egypt, Greek and Roman presence had been heavy and marked in Nobadae. Since no one now questioned that Nobadae (Nubia) was Ethiopian, the mixed breed could not be called Egyptian as was the previous case of first Cataract. The population in this kingdom bordering Caucasianized Egypt was now predominantly Afro-European and Afro-Asian. The problem was solved very neatly by calling them the ‘Red Noba’ and the Africans were called ‘Black Noba’. The other two kingdoms were all-black and presented no classification problems.
The churches seemed to be firmly rooted in Alwa and Makuria. Churches seemed to be everywhere. There were several in every large town, one in just about every small village, some in rural areas away from villages, and churches scattered over large urban centers, along with those of greater splendor in the ‘Cathedral Cities,’ the seats of bishops. White administration and control of African Christianity was assured by establishing the head of the Church in Lower Egypt (the Patriarch of Alexandria) with power to appoint all bishops in Africa. The bishops appointed were always white or near-white until token appointments of Blacks to lesser posts, such as deacons, had to be made following protests by black church leaders, supported by their kings. And while the ‘Red Men’ of Nobadae, caught in the middle, tended to identify with the Blacks of Makuria and Alwa, the split between the Western and Eastern churches over doctrine was reflected in the three Ethiopian kingdoms. This meant that the religious strife tended to alienate Monophysite Nobadae from Orthodox Makuria. This competition for ascendency may have had a great deal to do with the expansion of churches in Egypt and the former Ethiopian empire in the South.
These southern kingdoms also carried on much of the old Ethiopian tradition of rapid reconstruction after destruction. They continued the expansion of caravan routes for external trade across the Sahara to the western black world to offset the Egyptian seacoast monopoly. They replaced the vast temple-building programs with equally vast church-building programs, and they continued the development of the iron industries and better equipped armies. Egyptian, Asian, Greek and Roman influence was as marked on African institutions in Nobadae as it was on the complexion of most of the people living in this fringe kingdom. Nobadae, then, is a classic example of external influence on African institutions just as it had been on Egypt. . . .
In the fourth century A.D., the areas of black power had been pushed out of Egypt down to where the kingdom of Makuria formed its borders with Nobadae. Here the concentration of Blacks began, just as though a southward movement of the race was a decree of providence. Here, once again, they took their stand; here again, even in the lands which were officially Christian, black battle lines had to be formed again for defense. The Axumite Coloured ‘Solomonids’ and Arabs had retired after the destruction of the black empire. The more immediate danger was still Egypt. This was true also from the viewpoint of Christendom, for ‘white’ Egyptian control over the churches reflected the same policies that were to follow through the centuries into our own times. No church sponsored theological schools for the training of African clergy. By thus preventing educational opportunities, they could always maintain that the Blacks were simply ‘not qualified’ for this or that high post. In religion, as in every other field, the system deliberately prevented qualification in order to declare the lack of qualification on the part of Blacks in all regions under white control or in all institutions, in this case the Church, over which white power prevailed.
In discussing mass migration from Egypt, I hope no one has forgotten the countless thousands of Blacks left behind, in both Upper and Lower Egypt; . . . The people who accepted a slave or inferior status as their lot in the society were the kind Aristotle had in mind when he referred to men who were born to be slaves. On the other hand, those Blacks who migrated or fought to the death rather than accept slavery were those who were born to be free – the most important point missed by many quoting this most-quoted passage from Aristotle [See Aristotle, Politics, Book 1 Chapters 3-7].
It was these born-to-be free Blacks, who, as we have seen, not only beat back the enslaving invaders over and over again, but just as many times either conquered their would-be-enslavers or drove them back into Asia. The fall of the black empire did not mean that the Blacks had surrendered. The fragmented kingdoms were still to carry the fight to the enemy, and they were still to fight their way again across Egypt as far as to where their ancient city of Memphis once stood. Still others remained in the conquered regions simply because they refused to leave their ancestral homes, come what may.
By the seventh century, the Blacks had achieved a major goal by incorporating Nobadae with Makuria and thus re-establishing what had become the recognized boundary between Ethiopia and Egypt at the First Cataract. . . . the black kingdoms of Alwa and Makuria were stronger than ever since the fall of Napata and Meroe.”
So it is quite clear that the purpose of the Gospels and the creation of Jesus Christ was to create a religion to make people rebelling against established military authority more obedient. Christianity then arrived early in Alexandria, from Judaea and Syria (“colorless foreigners”) and used to subject the native (black) inhabitants of Ta-Meri (Lower Egypt) then the inhabitants of Ta-Nihisi ( Upper Egypt) and attacking the kingdoms of Meroe, Nobadae, Makuria and Alwa. Eight hundred years later, these same Christians, now living in Portugal, under “Lord Henry The Navigator, Ruler and Governor of the Chivalry of the Order of Jesus Christ” sailed to the land of Guinea to kidnap children, enslave their parents, and murder anyone that resisted. When those they captured were brought to what would become the United States of America, a program designed by Princeton Theologian and “Apostle to the Blacks” Reverend Charles Colcock Jones was officially launched throughout the United States in 1847 for the following purpose:
1) There will be a better understanding of the mutual relations of Master and Servant;
2) There will be GREATER SUBORDINATION and a decrease of crime amongst the Negroes;
3) Much unpleasant discipline will be saved to the Churches;
4) The Church and Society at large will be benefited;
5) The Souls of our Servants will be saved and,
6) We shall relieve ourselves of great responsibility.
With proper orientation through the knowledge of authorial intent, it is easy to understand the phenomenon of Christianity, its historic devastating effects, and its uselessness for the liberation struggle of black people.
Please read part 2:
Mental Slavery of Christianity: Its Origin, Development and The Challenge of Cognitive Dissonance to the African Ancestry Movement From the Point of View of Neuroscience and Behavior Change
ARTICLE SUMMARY:
1. Greeks and Jews (over a million) enter Egypt from Judea and Syria through Alexandria in the 1st century CE. The native population in the area hated the foreigners. The Greeks rule Egypt for almost 300 years before the expansion of the Roman Empire into Egypt in 30 BC. Both the Greek and Roman rulers of Egypt left Ethiopia to play its own role.
2. Titus Flavius (Rome, 70 AD) creates a religion to make the rebellious people more obedient. Hires Jewish militant Yosef ben Matityahu turned traitor and Roman agent “Flavius Josephus” to use Judaic literature form called “typology” to create a new messianic literature that exchanges a militant “messiah” or “Christ” for a passive “Jesus” who says “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and slaves obey your masters.”
3. Christians did not emerge as a noticeable cult in Egypt until 190 CE when Pantaenus, a Greek, founded the Christian doctrine school.
4. Dionysius (247 -264) was the first patriarch at Alexandria desiring to convert the native inhabitants in Egypt, but there was no response because Christian theology is contrary to Egyptian character.
5. Christians begin destroying all Egyptian systems of religion and in 312 CE, Christianity was made the official and only-religion of the Roman Empire. Shortly afterwards, when the Roman Empire split, Egypt became part of the Eastern or Byzantine Empire in 323 CE. Christian fanatics destroy al the remaining native Egyptian religious rights, properties and temples.
6. Only after the fall of the Kingdom of Meroe (350 AD) did Christianity begin to spread in Ethiopia. Two black states resisted the Christians: Makuria and Alwa. White administration and control of African Christianity was assured by establishing the head of the Church in Lower Egypt (the Patriarch of Alexandria) with power to appoint all bishops in Africa. The bishops appointed were always white or near-white until token appointments of Blacks to lesser posts, such as deacons, had to be made following protests by black church leaders, supported by their kings.
7. ‘White’ Egyptian control over the churches reflected the same policies that were to follow through the centuries into our own times. No church sponsored theological schools for the training of African clergy. By thus preventing educational opportunities, they could always maintain that the Blacks were simply ‘not qualified’ for this or that high post. In religion, as in every other field, the system deliberately prevented qualification in order to declare the lack of qualification on the part of Blacks in all regions under white control or in all institutions, in this case the Church, over which white power prevailed.
8. The people who accepted a slave or inferior status as their lot in the society were the kind Aristotle had in mind when he referred to men who were born to be slaves. On the other hand, those Blacks who migrated or fought to the death rather than accept slavery were those who were born to be free
9. So, it is quite clear that the purpose of the Gospels and the creation of Jesus Christ was to create a religion to make people rebelling against established military authority more obedient.