OUT OF INDIA
Research by Lucy Maness Warner
Compiled on February 23, 2016


The Romani, generally considered to have come from Northwest India, also have genetic similarities to people from Pakistan. The earliest historical mention of Romani related groups go back as far as 400 AD in Grecian territories, though they are dated also in 800 AD in and 1100 AD in Central and Western Europe. One of the earliest groups to be mentioned emerged in Spain under the Moors. There is no evidence that they have ever had a written language and a mythological tradition. There probably was such tradition, since most groups of people do have stories that have been handed down generation to generation. As for religion, they have generally adopted the religions and clothing of their host countries.

From the “History…” below comes an interesting statement: “. Kashmiri Pandits are Kashmiri Brahmins.[29]” One of the localized names for Romani groups, however, literally translates “untouchable,” and according to the same article, no Romanis have developed a known written language, except undoubtedly those in Kashmir. If they are Brahmins they are also certainly settled people rather than travelers. Another group name mentioned in an historical reference indicates that they were magicians and musicians, undoubtedly traveling performers.

Though the Romani have been one of those generally disparaged groups wherever they went, believed to murder, rape and steal, they are also extremely interesting in their stubborn adherence to their traditional life style, which is colorful and romantic. Now, reading this, their intricate cultural ties known to go back as far as 400 AD, probably go back even farther. In that they are reminiscent of the original Indo-European speaking groups who morphed in a long series of languages and cultures of Europe and Asia, and even some have migrated into the Americas and North Africa. See the several Internet articles below, which give a great deal of information about those whom we know best under the name “Gypsy.”

Whatever else is true of these people, their nomadic heritage which has held true in some places until present times, though the old beautiful and ornate “gypsy wagon” pulled by horses has probably disappeared to traveling around in automobiles. There are some twenty different groups of modern day nomads of various cultural ties, some with ancient religion, culture and language, given in the following Wikipedia article, which is interesting as a source of further study.

A group called “Irish Travelers,” who are light skinned and travel nowadays by automobile both in Europe and the US, are also considered to be of a low class and given to crime. I’m sure that any nomadic group who show up in Europe or the US would be feared and possibly hated.

One exception that occurs to me are the reindeer herding Sami, of Scandinavia, most of whom have now settled down and follow other traditional European trades. Those who choose to follow the old ways have maintained some very interesting folk beliefs, tent dwellings, etc. There was a wonderful TV documentary showing them milking their reindeer and telling stories around the fire within their tents. The Christian story of Santa Claus is discussed in that film, as it bears a close resemblance to a Sami belief.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Modern_nomads which states among other things, “This category is ambiguously titled and should be split to distinguish two separate scopes: groups practicing actual nomadic pastoralism today (Category:Nomads), "itinerant" groups (sometimes described as "nomadic" in a loose sense of the word) traditionally itinerant groups (romani, "indigenous travellers", etc.) neo-itinerant groups or individuals (migrant workers, "perpetual tourists" or "snowbirds", globetrotters, New Age travellers, etc.). I also suggest that the curious will read this article. It includes some twenty or more different types of nomadic people who do still exist around the world.]




Excerpt from the Wikipedia article “Languages of the Romani People,” –
“Etymology[edit]

“The demonyms of the Romani people, Lom and Dom share the same etymological origin,[15][16] reflecting Sanskrit ḍoma "a man of low caste, living by singing and music". [17][18]” This statement is in contrast to the proposed origin of some Roma people, based on Genetics, as being of the Brahmin caste.”




THE FOLLOWING IS A RECENT THEORY OF ORIGIN BASED ON DNA AND LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE, COMING FROM THE ARTICLE CALLED “HISTORY OF THE ROMANI PEOPLE,” WIKIPEDIA.

EXCERPTS:

[NOTE: An extremely complex map of proposed migration patterns is shown in this article.]

“The Burushos of Hunza have a paternal lineage genetic marker that is grouped with Pamiri speakers from Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and the Sintior Sindhi Romani ethnic group. This find of shared genetic haplogroups may indicate an origin of the Romani people in or around these regions.[27]” This may indicate that the Indian populations traveled east into India from Pakistan, rather than being originally Indian, but Roma linguistic and genetic clues have showed up across Europe and Asia, so their true origin may not be truly discovered yet. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me if they were to be found one of the earliest groups to have settled in those areas, rather than late comers.

Another genetic study, however, on the Domba groups of Roma indicates origin in India itself. “the ancestors of present scheduled tribes and scheduled caste populations of northern India, traditionally referred to collectively as the Ḍoma, are the likely ancestral populations of modern European Roma.[28] …. Autosomal data permits simultaneous analysis of multiple lineages, which can provide novel information about population history. According to a genetic study on autosomal data on Roma the source of Southasian Ancestry in Roma is North-West India. The two populations showing closest relatedness to Roma were Kashmiri Pandits and Sindhi. Kashmiri Pandits are Kashmiri Brahmins.[29] The classical and mtDNA genetic markers suggested the closest affinity of the Roma with Rajput and Sindhi populations from Rajasthan and the Punjab respectively.[28][30]”

Under the heading “Early Records,” their appearance in parts of Europe is placed much farther back than 1100 AD. “Early records[edit] -- Many Antique historians mention a tribe by the name of Sigynnae (Tsigani) on various locations in Europe. Early records of itinerant populations from India begin as early as the Sassanid period. Donald Kenrick notes the first recorded presence of Zott in Baghdad in AD 420, Khaneikin in AD 834.[31]”

ORIGINS

“The Romani have been described by Diana Muir Appelbaum as unique among peoples because they have never identified themselves with a territory; they have no tradition of an ancient and distant homeland from which their ancestors migrated, nor do they claim the right to national sovereignty in any of the lands where they reside, rather, Romani identity is bound up with the ideal of freedom expressed, in part, in having no ties to a homeland.[5] The absence of traditional origin stories and of a written history has meant that the origin and early history of the Romani people was long an enigma.

. . . . An alternative view is that the ancestors of the Romani were part of the military in Northern India. When there were invasions by Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi and these soldiers were defeated, they were moved west with their families into the Byzantine Empire between AD 1000 and 1030.[10] Genetic evidence connects the Romani people to the descendants of groups which emigrated from South Asia towards Central Asia during the medieval period.[11]”

. . . . Their early history shows a mixed reception. Although 1385 marks the first recorded transaction for a Romani slave in Wallachia, they were issued safe conduct by Sigismund of the Holy Roman Empire in 1417.[31] Romanies were ordered expelled from the Meissen region of Germany in 1416, Lucerne in 1471, Milan in 1493, France in 1504, Aragon in 1512, Sweden in 1525, England in 1530 (see Egyptians Act 1530), and Denmark in 1536.[31] In 1510, any Romani found in Switzerland were ordered to be put to death, with similar rules established in England in 1554, Denmark in 1589, and Sweden in 1637, whereas Portugal began deportations of Romanies to its colonies in 1538.[31]

Later, a 1596 English statute, however, gave Romanies special privileges that other wanderers lacked; France passed a similar law in 1683. Catherine the Great of Russia declared the Romanies "crown slaves" (a status superior to serfs), but also kept them out of certain parts of the capital.[37] In 1595, Ştefan Răzvan overcame his birth into slavery, and became the Voivode (Prince) of Moldavia.[31] . . . .

Settlement[edit]

In 1758, Maria Theresa of Austria began a program of assimilation to turn Romanies into ujmagyar (new Hungarians). The government built permanent huts to replace mobile tents, forbade travel, and forcefully removed children from their parents to be fostered by non-Romani.[31] By 1894, the majority of Romanies counted in a Hungarian national census were sedentary. In 1830, Romani children in Nordhausen were taken from their families to be fostered by Germans.[31]

Russia also encouraged settlement of all nomads in 1783, and the Polish introduced a settlement law in 1791. Bulgaria and Serbia banned nomadism in the 1880s.[31]

In 1783, racial legislation against Romanies was repealed in the United Kingdom, and a specific "Turnpike Act" was established in 1822 to prevent nomads from camping on the roadside, strengthened in the Highways Act of 1835.[31]

Persecution[edit]

Main article: Antiziganism

In 1538, the first anti-ziganist (anti-Romani) legislation was issued in Moravia and Bohemia, which were under Habsburg rule. Three years later, after a series of fires in Prague which were blamed on the Romani, Ferdinand I ordered them to be expelled. In 1545, the Diet of Augsburg declared that "whoever kills a Gypsy, will be guilty of no murder". The massive killing spree that resulted prompted the government to eventually step in and "forbid the drowning of Romani women and children".[38] In 1710, Joseph I ordered that "all adult males were to be hanged without trial, whereas women and young males were to be flogged and banished forever." In addition, they were to have their right ears cut off in the kingdom of Bohemia and their left ear in Moravia.[39]

In 1530, England issued the Egyptians Act which banned Romani from entering the country and required those living in the country to leave within 16 days. Failure to do so could result in confiscation of property, imprisonment and deportation. The act was amended with the Egyptians Act 1554, which ordered the Romani to leave the country within a month. Non-complying Romanies were executed.[40]”

Pre-war organization[edit]
In 1879, a national meeting of Romanies was held in the Hungarian town of Kisfalu (now Pordašinci, Slovenia). Romanies in Bulgaria set up a conference in 1919 to protest for their right to vote, and a Romani journal, Istiqbal (Future) was founded in 1923.[31]

In the Soviet Union, the All-Russian Union of Gypsies was organized in 1925 with a journal, Romani Zorya (Romani Dawn) beginning two years later. The Romengiro Lav (Romani Word) writer's circle encouraged works by authors like Nikolay Aleksandrovich Pankov and Nina Dudarova.[31]

A General Association of the Gypsies of Romania was established in 1933 with a national conference, and two journals, Neamul Tiganesc (Gypsy Nation) and Timpul (Time). An "international" conference was organized in Bucharest the following year.[31]

In Yugoslavia, Romani journal Romano Lil started publication in 1935.[31]

Porajmos[edit]

Main article: Porajmos
During World War II, the Nazis murdered 220,000 to 1,500,000 Romanies in an attempted genocide referred to as the Porajmos.[41] Like the Jews, they were sentenced to forced labor and imprisonment in concentration camps. They were often killed on sight, especially by the Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front.

Post-war history

In Communist central and eastern Europe, Romanies experienced assimilation schemes and restrictions of cultural freedom. The Romani language and Romani music were banned from public performance in Bulgaria. In Czechoslovakia, tens of thousands of Romanies from Slovakia, Hungary and Romania were re-settled in border areas of Czech lands and their nomadic lifestyle was forbidden. In Czechoslovakia, where they were labeled as a “socially degraded stratum,” Romani women were sterilized as part of a state policy to reduce their population. This policy was implemented with large financial incentives, threats of denying future social welfare payments, misinformation and involuntary sterilization.[42]

In the early 1990s, Germany deported tens of thousands of migrants to central and eastern Europe. Sixty percent of some 100,000 Romanian nationals deported under a 1992 treaty were Romani.

During the 1990s and early 21st century many Romanies from central and eastern Europe attempted to migrate to western Europe or Canada. The majority of them were turned back. Several of these countries established strict visa requirements to prevent further migration.

In 2005, the Decade of Roma Inclusion was launched in nine Central and Southeastern European countries to improve the socio-economic status and social inclusion of the Romani minority across the region.

Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005 - 2015 has been not success at all. The Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005-2015 is coming to the end of its originally defined term. It initiated crucially important processes for Roma inclusion in Europe, and provided the impetus for an EU-led effort covering similar subject matter, the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (EU Framework).

America

Romanies began immigrating to the United States in colonial times, with small groups in Virginia and French Louisiana. Larger-scale immigration began in the 1860s, with groups of Romnichal from Britain. The largest number immigrated in the early 20th century, mainly from the Vlax group of Kalderash. Many Romanies also settled in other countries of the Americas.

Romani nationalism

A small Roma nationalist movement exists.

The first World Romani Congress was organized in 1971 near London, funded in part by the World Council of Churches and the Government of India. It was attended by representatives from India and 20 other countries. At the congress, the green and blue flag from the 1933 conference, embellished with the red, sixteen-spoked chakra, was reaffirmed as the national emblem of the Romani people, and the anthem, "Gelem, Gelem" was adopted.

The International Romani Union was officially established in 1977, and in 1990, the fourth World Congress declared April 8 to be International Day of the Roma, a day to celebrate Romani culture and raise awareness of the issues facing the Romani community.

The 5th World Romany Congress in 2000 issued an official declaration of the Romany non-territorial nation.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Romani_people

Names of the Romani people
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map Historical Distribution of Romani People By Language – See Website.

“The Romani people are also known by a variety of other names; in English as gypsies or gipsies (seen by some as a slur, as discussed below) and Roma, in Greek as γύφτοι (gýftoi) or τσινγάνοι (tsingánoi), in Central and Eastern Europe as Tsigani (and variants), in France as gitans besides the dated bohémiens, manouches, in Italy as zingari and gitani, and in Spain as gitanos.

Self-designation also varies: In Central and Eastern Europe, Roma is common. The Romani of England call themselves (in Angloromani) Romanichal, those of Scandinavia (in Scandinavian romanidialect) Romanisæl. In German-speaking Europe, the self-designation is Sinti, in France Manush, while the groups of Spain, Wales and Finland use Kalo/Kale (from kalo meaning "black"). There are numerous subgroups and clans with their own self-designations, such as the Kalderash, Machvaya, Boyash, Lovari, Modyar, Xoraxai, Lăutari, etc.

. . . English usage[edit]
In the English language (according to OED), Rom is a noun (with the plural Romá or Roms) and an adjective, while Romany is also a noun (with the plural Romanies) and an adjective. Both Rom and Romany have been in use in English since the 19th century as an alternative for Gypsy. Romany is also spelled Romani, or Rommany.[2][3][4][5][6]

Sometimes, rom and romani are spelled with a double r, i.e., rrom and rromani, particularly in Romania in order to distinguish from the Romanian endonym (români). This is well established in Romani itself, since it represents a phoneme (/ʀ/ also written as ř and rh) which in some Romani dialects has remained different from the one written with a single r.[7]

Roma is a term primarily used in political contexts to refer to the Romani people as a whole.[8][9] Still, some subgroups of Romani do not self-identify as Roma, therefore some scholars avoid using the term Roma as not all Romani subgroups accept the term.[10]

Because all Romanies use the word Romani as an adjective, the term began to be used as a noun for the entire ethnic group.[11]

Today, the term Romani is used by some organizations — including the United Nations and the US Library of Congress.[7] However, the Council of Europe and other organizations use the term Roma to refer to Romani people around the world, and recommended that Romani be restricted to the language and culture: Romani language, Romani culture.[12][13][14]

Etymology[edit]
The demonyms of the Romani people, Lom and Dom share the same etymological origin,[15][16] reflecting Sanskrit ḍoma "a man of low caste, living by singing and music"[17][18] . . . .

Gipsy/gypsy originates from the Middle English gypcian, short for Egipcien. It is ultimately derived, via Middle French and Latin, from the Greek Αἰγύπτιοι (Aigyptioi), i.e. "Egyptians"; cf. Greek γύφτοι (gýftoi), a corruption of the same word. It was once believed that the Romanies, or some other gypsy groups (such as the Balkan Egyptians), originated in Egypt, and in one narrative were exiled as punishment for allegedly harbouring the infant Jesus.[33]

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) states a 'gipsy' is a member of a wandering race (by themselves called Romany), of Indian origin, which first appeared in England about the beginning of the 16th c.

According to the OED, the word was first used in English in 1514, with several more uses in the same century, and both Edmund Spenser and William Shakespeare used this word.[34]

. . . . Use in English law[edit]

Gipsy has several developing and overlapping meanings under English Law. Under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, gipsies are defined as "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such."[41] This definition includes such groups as New Age Travellers, as well as Irish Travellers and Romany.[42][43]

Gipsies of Romany origins have been a recognised ethnic group for the purposes of Race Relations Act 1976 since Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton 1989 and Irish Travellers in England and Wales since O'Leary v Allied Domecq 2000 (having already gained recognition in Northern Ireland in 1997).[44]”



The following article about modern day gypsy life and traditions is interesting also. This is the first reference to spiritual life among gypsies, and the sections called Hierarchy and Family Structure are fascinating. I suggest reading the whole article as it contains information other than that in any of the other articles above.

“http://www.livescience.com/44512-gypsy-culture.html, Reference:Gypsy Culture: Customs, Traditions & Beliefs,” by Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor | January 26, 2015 03:09am ET.

Photograph -- Three unidentified Roma girls in Romania. The Roma constitute one of the largest minorities in Romania. Credit: dinosmichail / Shutterstock.comView full size image
Roma migration path on map -- Pin It This map shows the migration of Roma people from northwest India to Europe. Credit: PNASView full size image


“The Roma today

Spiritual beliefs

The Roma do not have an official faith and in the past, they typically disdained organized religion. Today, they often adopt the predominant religion of the country where they are living, according to FRUA, and describe themselves as "many stars scattered in the sight of God." Some Roma groups are Catholic, Muslim, Pentecostal, Protestant, Anglican or Baptist, according to Open Society Foundations.

The Roma live by a complex set of rules that govern things such as cleanliness, purity, respect, honor and justice. These rules are referred to as what is "Rromano." Rromano means to behave with dignity and respect as a Roma person, according to FRUA. "Rromanipé" is what the Romani refer to as their worldview.

Language

Though the groups of Roma are varied, they all do speak one language. This language is called Rromanës, or the Romani language. Rromanës is related to a northern Indian dialect, called Punjab, and is spoken by about 5 to 6 million Roma people throughout Europe and the United States, according to FRUA.

Dress

Typically, Gypsies love opulence. In day-to-day life, Roma women wear gold jewelry and headdresses decorated with coins as a display of prosperity and generosity towards others, according to the FRUA.

Weddings are huge affairs with large, custom-made wedding dresses. Often, the girls in a group will compete to see who can have the largest, most extravagant wedding dress. Some of this has been documented in the American show My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding.

Hierarchy

Traditionally, anywhere from 10 to several hundred extended families form bands, or kumpanias, which travel together in caravans. Each band is lead by a voivode, whom the families elect for lifetime. This person is their chieftain. A senior woman in the band, called a phuri dai, looks after the welfare of the group’s women and children.

Smaller alliances, called vitsas, are formed within the bands and are made up of families who are brought together through common ancestry.

Family Structure

The Roma place great value on extended families, according to FRUA. Families typically involve multiple generations living together, including unmarried young and adult children and a married son, his wife and their children. By the time an older son is ready to establish his own household, a younger son often will have married and brought his wife and children into the family.

Romani typically marry young — often in their teens — and many marriages are arranged. Weddings are typically very elaborate, involving very large and colorful dress for the bride and her many attendants. Though during the courtship phase, girls are encouraged to dress provocatively, sex is something that is not had until after marriage, according to The Learning Channel. Some groups have declared that no girl under 16 and no boy under 17 will be married, according to the BBC.

Romani professions

The Roma have a long history of training, trading and caring for animals. They also have worked as metal smiths, and repaired utensils and sold household goods they made themselves, according to FRUA. Many worked as traveling entertainers, using their rich musical background to earn money.

While there are still traveling bands of Gypsies, most use cars and RVs to move from place to place rather than the horses and wagons of the past.

Today, most have settled into houses and apartments and are not readily distinguishable. Because of continued discrimination, many do not publicly acknowledge their roots and only reveal themselves to other Romani.

While there is not a physical country affiliated with the Romani people, the International Romani Union was officially established in 1977. In 2000, The 5th World Romany Congress in 2000 officially declared Romani a non-territorial nation.

April 8 is International Day of the Roma, a day to raise awareness of the issues facing the Roma community and celebrate the Romani culture.




Search Terms From Wikipedia And Other Sources

Sinti
Romanichal
Balkan Egyptians
New Age Travelers
Irish Travelers
Romany
athinganoi, literally "untouchables"
Melchisedechians
Origin of the Romani people
Zott
Didicoy
Romani, Domari and Lomavren languages
Burushos and Pamiris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunza_Valley


Nations and Names --

Tsinganoi[edit]

In much of continental Europe, Romanies are known by names cognate to the Greek term τσιγγάνοι (tsinganoi). The name originates with Byzantine Greek ἀτσίγγανοι (atsinganoi, Latin adsincani) or ἀθίγγανοι (athinganoi, literally "untouchables"), a term applied to the sect of the Melchisedechians. [45][46][47] The Adsincani appear in an 11th-century text preserved in Mt Athos, The Life of Saint George the Athonite (written in the Georgian language), as "a Samaritan people, descendants of Simon the Magician, named Adsincani, who were renowned sorcerers and villains". In the text, emperor Constantine Monomachos employs the Adsincani to exterminate wild animals, who were destroying the game in the imperial park of Philopation.[48] NOTE – GO TO THE WEBSITE FOR LIST AND LOCATIONS.

Bohémiens[edit]

Because many Romanies living in France had come via Bohemia, they were referred to as Bohémiens.[49] This term would later be adapted by the French to refer to a particular artistic and impoverished lifestyle of an individual, known as Bohemianism.
Other[edit]

Armenian: գնչու gnčʿu
Arabic: غجر ghájar
Basque: ijito,[50][51] buhame[52][53] (in the Northern Basque Country), kaskarot[54] (in Saint Jean de Luz), erromintxela (for Basque-speaking Romanies)
Georgian: ბოშები bošebi
Persian: کولی Koli
Japanese: ロマ Roma
Chinese: 罗姆人 Luō mǔ rén

See also[edit]

Dom people
List of Romani people
Lom people
Lyuli
Origin of the Romani people
Romani people by country
Zott
Didicoy

WHERE DO THEY GET ALL THAT STUFF?


All of you know by now that there is a disgusting television show called “The Walking Dead.” You either watch it, engrossed in the shock/horror/suspense, or you immediately change the channel. I, needless to say, am of the latter kind. I am, however, interested in the origins of these stories which are coming, amazingly, from some Fundamentalist Christians.

I first went to the Net to look for Bible references, if any, of groups of “walking dead” resembling those in the lowbrow TV show, which is surprisingly popular, though not among my friends. The best information comes from the blog of Santi Tafarella, a present day blogger, and not the Italian-American dance band leader Santi Tafarella from the 1920s. Some of his mandolin works are available on Google. This blogger apparently likes his music and has coopted his name. (Go to YouTube -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5xDdWZj4MM – for a musical treat.)

All of the Net references except these few go back to a comic book series. Not wisdom literature or any other kind of scripture, but quoted by a cult following nowadays to bolster their claims about a Zombie Apocalypse. It’s just one more idiotic fad. Oh, yes, there is an action video game as well.



https://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/matthew-2751-53-the-bibles-night-of-the-living-dead-passage/,

Are Luke 24:6 and Mark 16:6-7 in Contradiction? Cringe inducing: Christians talk about Obama’s sincerity in prayer
Matthew 27:51-53: The Bible’s “Night of the Living Dead” Passage
Santi Tafarella’s blog on books, culture, and politics
Posted on June 17, 2010


"Matthew 27:51-53.

Have you ever noticed what it says?

Immediately after Jesus’s death, Matthew has this very, very strange Night of the Living Dead story that he includes in his gospel. Matthew says that there was, immediately following Jesus’s death, an earthquake, and this earthquake was accompanied by an astonishing mass resurrection in which “many bodies of the saints which slept arose.” And not only did they arise from the dead, Matthew claims that they entered the very city of Jerusalem, appearing “unto many.” It’s so wild a passage that I’ll quote it in full (from the King James version of the Bible):

“51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”

There are three pretty good reasons to doubt that this story actually happened:

Outside of this one gospel, no other ancient writer knows anything about this (not even as a rumor). It is as if a UFO had descended on Jerusalem and absolutely no one, apart from Matthew, thought it worthy of marking in historical memory. An event of so dramatic a nature would have changed everything in history. But not even the other gospels know the story. Why? Obviously because it did not happen.

Even if we gave Matthew the benefit of the doubt, and held open the possibility that he recounted a real event, we still must ask a simple question: where did the author get the story? And the answer is this: We simply do not know. If Matthew believed that the story was true, and not a bit of folklore, we will never know what evidence or testimony convinced him that it was true. We have only a spectacularly implausible tale.

Matthew has other stories of similarly poor quality, and they also lack credibility. See, for example, Matthew 28:11-15, in which the author circulates a conspiracy theory around which Jews are said to have tried to cover-up the resurrection of Jesus. The story, like Matthew’s “Night of the Living Dead” passage, provokes from us similar questions: Where did Matthew get the story? How does he know the story is true? How do we know whether Matthew isn’t just circulating a grotesque and fantastic antisemitic rumor?

But Matthew’s Night of the Living Dead passage (Mt. 27:51-53) is more than just implausible (if read literally). It also raises serious red flags concerning the whole of his gospel. In other words, it drives us to a number of unpleasant conclusions, such as these:

If Matthew can include such a wildly implausible and fanciful story in his gospel, maybe a lot of other things that he asserts are fanciful as well.

It seems that Matthew was not somebody who worried all that much about getting his facts straight before promulgating a story. Nor was he worried that people might spread his story without knowing anything more than what he told them in his book.

Matthew 27:51-53 would seem to provide clear evidence that the author of “Matthew” (whoever he was) had a very low regard for verification (either getting it for himself or distributing it to others).
And, of course, the biggest issue that Matthew 27:51-53 raises is this:

If Matthew can make a wild claim concerning many people rising from the dead, it casts doubt on the story he offers of one person rising from the dead (Jesus).

If a person is discovered to have spread a wild and unfounded rumor, it is reasonable to be suspicious of any other claims that he might make as well, don’t you think?"

SEE ALSO Video – “A Hard Day’s Night Of The Living Dead”



https://www.bible.com/bible/1/ezk.37.7-10.kjv

From Ezekiel:

“7 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. 8 And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. 9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
Read Ezekiel 37”


This sounds like the scripture behind the Negro Spiritual “Dem Bones Dem Bones Dem Dry Bones,” which is rousing and beautiful when sung. It never occurred to me that it would be taken literally, but then I’m not a Fundamentalist Christian. When I was young, people would tell ghost stories for their entertainment (I remember well the days before TV was in every home), but very few adults believed them. My grandfather, who was in his eighties in 1950, did admit to having attended a seance, and witnessing the table “rising.” Someone suggested that a member of the party was simply pushing up with his knees causing the movement, but he swore it really did. Nowadays there is a revival of spiritualism. Interesting as it is, I can only opt out.



Other Biblical references:


https://www.openbible.info/topics/spirits_walking_the_earth

Spirits Walking The Earth

1 John 4:1 ESV / 22 helpful votes

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Isaiah 26:19 ESV / 15 helpful votes

Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead.

Matthew 27:51-53 ESV / 6 helpful votes

And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Zechariah 14:12 ESV / 3 helpful votes

And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the peoples that wage war against Jerusalem: their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

Mark 6:47-51 ESV / 2 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.” And he got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded,

Matthew 14:26 ESV / 2 helpful votes

But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear.

Unless otherwise indicated, all content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright ©2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Contact me: openbibleinfo (at) gmail.com. Cite this page: Editor: Stephen Smith. Publication date: Feb 18, 2016. Publisher: OpenBible.info.


About The Licenses - Creative Commons
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Creative Commons
Attribution CC BY. This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original ...

CAUCUSING VS POLLS

These articles are about the Iowa caucus only, but they do speak of the things which make the process seem both chaotic, inefficient, unnecessarily time consuming for the voter and lacking in access. The Democratic and Republican parties set their own caucusing rules, and those that the Democrats decided upon are the most unfair and convoluted. The Republicans simply meet at the caucus locations and listen to speeches, then vote on paper by secret ballot. That is simple and fair, especially if they allow absentee balloting.

The Democratic Party has just this year allowed tele-conferencing which would still require going to the satellite location, but it should increase access for outlying locations. Unfortunately, they have only allowed four satellite sites so far. That is extremely limited. The Dems still need an absentee ballot method of voting, in my opinion, as well. Just because citizens don’t caucus shouldn’t mean that they don’t get to vote. The 2016 method is an improvement, but it still does not give every person a chance to vote. See the first three articles below on the numerous problems that are involved. The facts that the turnout in 2008 was shockingly low – just 17% of registered voters – and that those who did caucus were predominantly wealthier, with incomes of over $50,000 is to me evidence that the limitations of access are causing real problems.

The reason given for continuing to use caucusing rather than an ordinary paper ballot method at all local polling places as the other states do, is that it is their beloved “tradition” and supposedly a purer form of democracy. Given the drawbacks to voting under that system, it's highly debatable. To me, it should give way to efficiency and go with precinct ballot elections. For the General Elections that is what they do, thank goodness.

The first three articles highlight the problems. My strongest complaints are the lack of secret ballot voting and the continued need for better access. Until this year, 2016, there was no mechanism set up for greater access due to disability or transportation problems, and no proxy voting. There is still no proxy voting, so voters do have to show up in person and participate physically. That would be a difficult thing for me, for instance, with arthritis in multiple joints, to do. There are four – far too few -- satellite locations communicating by tele-conferencing as of this year, to be set up by groups at their locations more convenient to them and tele-caucusing for the military. To attend a satellite site a voter must complete an application through “iowademocrats.org” after which he will be assigned to one of the four tele-caucusing sites. He still has to arrange some sort of transportation.

See the following two items about tele-caucusing and satellite caucusing.

http://iowademocrats.org/satellite-caucus-applications-now-available-for-2016-iowa-democratic-caucuses/ -- “DES MOINES – As part of the Iowa Democratic Party’s continuing efforts to expand participation in the Iowa Democratic Precinct Caucuses, today the IDP released satellite caucus application forms for the 2016 caucuses. Satellite caucus locations, which will be instituted for the first time next year, are meant for groups of Democrats who want to participate in the caucuses, but are unable to attend their precinct caucus due to a hardship (limitations of mobility, distance, or time). Satellite caucuses will be held at the same day and time, 7 p.m. on February 1st, 2016, as the precinct caucuses.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-D, The Green Papers
2016 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions,” states: “Military (tele-caucus) and other voters (satellite caucuses) who can not [sic] attend the precinct caucuses in person may participate in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses via tele-conference. There will be no absentee or proxy voting at any precinct caucus. The satellite caucuses are allocated 3 delegates and the military tele-caucus is allocated 2 delegates to the state convention.”


The following two articles discuss the problems in general of the Democratic Party of Iowa’s caucusing rules.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/iowa-caucuses-are-horribly-undemocratic

Why the Iowa caucuses are horribly undemocratic UPDATED
By Zachary Roth
01/29/16 07:23 AM—UPDATED 01/29/16 03:54 PM

Photograph -- Hillary Clinton; “Iowa caucuses inaccessible to some,” 1/29/16, 3:42 PM ET

STATEMENT FROM PETCO AFTER AN EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT:

We appreciate the concern and questions raised around this erroneous story; however we’ve learned that the partner who spoke to MSNBC was never scheduled to work on Monday, the day of the Iowa Caucus. She never formally requested time off and was under the impression that the Caucus was being held on Tuesday. For the record, it’s important to point out that Petco wholeheartedly supports and encourages civic involvement among all our partners at every level of the company. We also have a voting policy that allows partners scheduled to work on election days the ability to arrive to work late or leave early without loss of pay.


For years, critics of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status have pointed out that the state — small, rural, and 94 percent white — is an awful proxy for the nation as a whole. The effect is made worse by the fact that New Hampshire, the third whitest state in the nation, follows Iowa in the presidential nominating process. But that’s just the start: The wacky way in which Iowa’s Democratic caucuses award delegates — explained by MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald here — grossly violates the concept of one person, one vote. (The Republican process isn’t much fairer: It allowed Ron Paul’s supporters in 2012 to manipulate the party’s convention process and get 23 of the state’s 28 delegates, even though he only came third in the actual voting.) Then there’s the fact that, for Democrats, there’s no secret ballot: All voting is done in public, forcing people to expose their political views to their neighbors and co-workers whether they want to or not. And this year, there are also concerns about basic administration: Democrats are said to lack people to run the caucus in hundreds of sites, and incorrect or changing caucus locations are adding to the confusion.

But the tightly limited hours are perhaps the most glaring problem — especially at a time when Democrats are emphasizing the importance of expanding access to voting, and are responding to the needs of working people. The caucuses start at 7 p.m. sharp — no one gets in if they show up late — and last until 10. There’s no absentee or early voting.



MSNBC LIVE WITH THOMAS ROBERTS, 1/27/16, 1:52 PM ET
What's a caucus?

Bowing to pressure this year, the Iowa Democratic Party is allowing people to apply to hold satellite caucuses. But participants still must be free for three hours on a specific evening, so that doesn’t help people who can’t leave work. And only four satellite caucuses will be held this year, the party said.

Not surprisingly, turnout for the caucuses is strikingly low. In 2008, the last year both parties had competitive contests, 359,000 people showed up for either the Democratic or Republican caucuses. That was just 17 percent of Iowa’s registered voters, and far fewer than the 517,623 who voted in New Hampshire’s primary that year, even though Iowa’s population is more than twice New Hampshire’s. Broadly speaking, caucus-goers appear to be richer than those who don’t make it, at least among Democrats. In 2008, 42 percent of Democratic caucus-goers made less than $50,000 a year, according to exit polls. By contrast, 47 percent of those who voted for Obama that fall made less than $50,000.

On the Democratic side, the lack of access is especially jarring at a time when both of the party’s leading candidates have emphasized making voting easier as key parts of their platforms, highlighting a contrast with the GOP, which has supported restrictive voting rules.

“We’ve got to make it easier to vote, not harder,” Hillary Clinton wrote in an op-ed last week. Both she and Sanders have endorsed automatic voter registration of the kind enacted this year in Oregon and California — Bernie Sanders even introduced a Senate bill to take the idea national, and to make Election Day a national holiday. And consider that Clinton’s top lawyer, Marc Elias, last year filed suit against cuts to early voting in Ohio and Wisconsin, claiming that the changes unfairly burdened the right to vote — lawsuits that were applauded by Clinton’s campaign. But even those states’ shortened schedules offer exponentially more access than do the caucuses.

The restricted hours are increasingly out of step not only with the direction of the Democratic Party, but also with broader economic trends. Many of those who will be shut out are likely to be low-wage workers, who typically have little control over their schedules. Indeed, 48 percent of Iowa’s jobs pay less than $15 an hour, according to Bureau of Labor statistics. Nationally, too, a growing share of jobs are in the low-wage service sector. A bill introduced in November by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, which would encourage more dependable employee schedules, highlighted the problem. Both Clinton and Sanders have taken pains to reach out to the low-wage worker movement as it fights for a higher minimum wage and better working conditions. On Thursday, fast-food workers walked off the job in Des Moines to protest their low pay.



MTP DAILY, 1/28/16, 5:35 PM ET
Harkin Expects 'Solid' Clinton Win in Iowa

Clinton is aware of the problem. Back in 2008, she seemed to blame the caucuses’ limited hours for her defeat in Iowa to Barack Obama, whose sophisticated turnout operation — his campaign even offered baby-siting help to supporters — and appeal among plugged-in party activists gave him an advantage. “You know, there are a lot of people who couldn’t caucus tonight,” Clinton noted in a speech after the results were in. “There are a lot of people who work at night, people who are on their feet, people who are taking care of patients in a hospital, or waiting on a table in a restaurant, or maybe in a patrol car keeping our streets safe.”

But asked twice whether she’s still concerned that the caucuses won’t give those people a voice, her campaign didn’t respond.

Sanders’ campaign said the senator would like to see the party do more to improve access. ”He is committed to working with the state party to expand participation through the implementation of new policies such as ensuring employers give time off to their workers so they are able to caucus,” Brendan Summers, Sanders’ Iowa caucus director, said in a statement.

Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party, pointed to the satellite caucuses as evidence that the party understands the need to make the process more accessible.

“This year we are starting small, but we hope the satellite caucuses are able to grow in the upcoming years so as many Iowans as possible have the ability to caucus,” Lau told MSNBC. “While we firmly believe that the caucuses are a unique and important form of democracy, we are constantly looking for ways to make them better and more inclusive, and will continue to do so moving forward.”

CORRECTION: This story originally reported on a worker at Petco who said she was unable to caucus because she had to work. In fact, she has caucus night off. See statement from Petco at top of story.



GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT IOWA CAUCUSING


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

Iowa caucuses
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Process[edit]

A 2008 Democratic caucus meeting in Iowa City, Iowa

The Iowa Caucus operates very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states (see U.S. presidential primary). The caucuses are generally defined as "gatherings of neighbors." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1,681 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, public libraries and even individuals' houses. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years. In addition to the voting and the presidential preference choices, caucus-goers begin the process of writing their parties’ platforms by introducing resolutions.[9]

Beginning with the 2012 Presidential election, Iowa switched from the old winner-take-all allocation to proportional allocation. The change was made to prolong the race, giving lesser known candidates a chance and making it harder for a frontrunner to secure the majority early. It was also hoped that this change in the election system would energize the base of the party.[10][11]



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/23/heres-how-the-iowa-caucuses-work/

Iowa caucuses: Here’s how the voting works
By David Weigel
February 1, 2016


Tonight, a few hundred thousand Iowa residents will gather in a couple thousand caucus sites and finally, finally kick-start the presidential nomination process. It's been 44 years since the first presidential caucuses that mattered, and 40 years since both parties held them. And yet, for the 315.8 million Americans who do not live in Iowa — and for the slightly smaller millions who live in primary, not caucus, states — the process perpetually needs explaining.

What time do the Iowa caucuses start? At 7 p.m. Central time, across the state. Expect the cable TV countdown clocks to start much sooner.

When will we know the winner? In 2008, the caucuses were called for then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) by 8:30 p.m. Central. Both men won by nine points, and early counts matched the exit polls. In 2012, the late surge of former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) forced an election night tie with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and the networks (and more importantly, front-page editors) only seemed able to call a winner after midnight. That call was wrong. What looked like an eight-vote victory for Romney had been scrambled when eight precincts, with a total of 298 missing votes, missed the count. Santorum had won, a fact that was not reported until 16 days later. Short answer: This year? Probably by 10 or 11 p.m. Central. (You'll be able to see maps here.)

How is a caucus different from a primary? The answer differs depending on which party you're asking about. Instead of heading to one of Iowa's 1,681 precincts and pulling a lever, voters will head to a caucus site that may toss several precincts together. Instead of seeing their votes tabulated by the state elections office, they'll see them reported to the state parties, which will in turn report them to the news media.

Here's where the parties diverge. A Republican caucus is odd but simple, a peanut-butter-and-tuna-fish combination of a normal election and a PTA meeting. At nearly 900 caucus sites, voters will gather, then hear speeches from whichever campaigns have precinct captains assigned to whip up votes. (Presidential candidates can show up and do this for themselves, in one of the most intimate examples of democracy in all of politics.) Then they'll write their choices on paper and hand them in.

The Democratic caucus process is more complicated. When they show up at one of the 1,100-odd sites, voters will be asked to gather in sections designated for the candidates. They will be counted. If one candidate fails to get at least 15 percent of voters in his corner, they are released, and caucus captains for the surviving candidates can personally lobby and answer questions, enticing them to join up. After that, delegates are assigned based on the support for each candidate.

It sounds confusing, and it is. For starters, the number of delegates for each precinct will be assigned based on Democratic turnout in that precinct from the last two elections. (There is no raw vote total released, only projections of how many Democrats turned out.) If there's a massive surge of voters in, say, an Iowa City precinct, if there's a massive fall-off in a rural precinct, it does not matter — the same number of delegates are at stake. This might be best illustrated by the live recording C-SPAN did from one key caucus site in 2008.

Has that mattered in the past? Yes, it has. In 2004, the Democratic presidential campaign of former Vermont governor Howard Dean was clearly starting to flag before the vote. The final Iowa poll pegged then-senator and future secretary of state John F. Kerry (Mass.) at 26 percent, future tabloid cover star John Edwards at 23 percent, Dean at 20 percent and former House minority leader Dick Gephardt at 18 percent.

The final result: Kerry 38, Edwards 32, Dean 18, Gephardt 11. Dean was hit three times: first by his falling level of overall support, then by the 15 percent rule, and finally by the superior acumen of volunteers for the Kerry and Edwards campaigns. In real time, they pulled people from Dean to their side.

How does any of that matter this year? It's an open question, but we all have a few questions that can't be answered until caucus night. Donald Trump, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and even Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are all claiming that new voters will swarm the caucus sites and break the turnout models. Will they? Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley has run a traditional Iowa campaign, but he's struggled to break out of single digits in the polls. Who will O'Malley's supporters pull for in the second stage of the caucuses?

By David Weigel February 1