Just getting home form work, with a glass of wine n my hand, I start to contemplate my next blog entry and am doing some random googling. Out of nowhere, this gem bursts forth from the bosom of wikipedia....
"This Left-Right paradigm concept theorizes that the two opposing
political parties utilize their tremendous hold over mainstream media to
dramatize political distractions and engage in covert warfare and
operations, in grand performances of bureaucratic rivalry meant to
propagandize and divide the populace. Divisive issues are purposefully
fed through the major media outlets to divert attention away from the
ruling class's hidden and ulterior (and sometimes global) agendas. By
drawing attention to the differences between the two embedded political
systems, ideologies, races and classes, the political groups obscure
political clarity and divide unity among the masses. The tactic creates
confusion and frustration among the population, which enables the ruling
class to increase and consolidate their wealth and power through
maintaining an illusion of a two-party system of checks and balances
that actually works. The theory contends that the fresh interjection of a
new political party or group (such as the expanding Libertarian or
Green parties) into the political arena, would be the only way to
provide a means to break the cyclical paradigm, currently established in
the political system."
Now, I am not a conspiracy theorist and in fact, have an instinctive revulsion to them. My main problem with conspiracy theories is the wishful thinking and denial of all personal culpability, "Oh, if only it wasn't for [insert favorite bogeyman here] the world would be such a better place". Wrong. We common, everyday, folk are plenty capable of trashing the country just as easily and as viciously as Axl Rose trashed hotel rooms. However, the first three quarters of this wiki paragraph (the link is here Left-Right Paradigm), has an air about it........I won't say it is legit, but I won't say it isn't either.
But the real knee slapper, the real lmfao moment comes towards the end...."The theory contends that the fresh interjection of a
new political party or group (such as the expanding Libertarian or
Green parties) into the political arena, would be the only way to
provide a means to break the cyclical paradigm, currently established in
the political system." Did Chris Rock write this wiki entry? Oh that is a jewel! Democracy is broken! The solution? More democracy....or something.
This is almost too concise, to realistic to even be funny. The system is broke, but it will fix itself.....people actually believe this. A third party? A fourth? Democracy was founded and is perpetuated by eternal optimists. Any realist sees the wisdom in Einstein's dictum and truly, we are living in an insane world.
Monday, February 10, 2014
A Utopian Finally Makes the World a Better Place
Yesterday's radical, today's establishment, tomorrow's worm food.....
Godfather of Multiculturalism Stuart Hall
Godfather of Multiculturalism Stuart Hall
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Was Jesus Born on December 25th?
Was Jesus Born on December 25th?
Firstly, I intend for this to be an historical exercise, not a religious one. Secondly, this subject is vastly debated, with a very wide array of methods and sources, far too many to examine here in any depth. This is, as far as I know, an original hypothesis on my part. I have found no one else pursuing this line of reasoning.
It seems that absolutely no one believes that Jesus was actually born on December 25th. I will attempt to make the case that it is possible, if not likely that in fact, He was. I admit ahead of time, that my case is circumstantial, but based on some historical facts, followed by logical supposition (or so, I believe).
I will attempt to summarize the current theories on the day of Christ's birth.
1. He was born in the Spring or Summer. Biblically based. (I use the Douay-Rheims version)
This is based primarily on the description in the Bible, of the shepherds tending their flocks (Luke 2:8). It is assumed that the shepherds are grazing their flocks and therefore this must be in the Spring or Summer, since there would be no grass in December. Further, they would not be 'standing watch' on their flocks except outside of their farms. There is also a convoluted interpretation of The Apocalypse, that claims to prove(with some astronomical additives), that proves Jesus was born in September.
2. He was born any other time but December. Astronomically based.
The dates concluded based on astronomical observations are all over the place. Most seem to center on June, but January, September and a plethora of other dates are given for various comets, planet/star/moon conjunctions occurring and explaining the Star of Bethlehem. The closest day to traditional Christmas observation is January 6th, which is interesting, since that would quite possibly confirm a December 25th birth. Outside of my hypothesis, that can wait for another time.
I have read much on both of these theories and frankly, I find them both wanting. Accepting the Bible at face value, Luke 2:8 would seem to be almost a slam dunk. Yet, it isn't. It says nothing of the shepherds actually grazing their flocks, this is assumed. Herds or flocks of any livestock were and are valuable. Rustling occurred then and now. Even in the environs of the farm or ranch, why would you not have the hired hands keeping a close eye on your livelihood? If it was winter, this may be especially the case, when livestock would be that much more vulnerable, despite being in a barn. Further, I would submit that this is Israel, near Bethlehem(Luke 2:8 And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock). I have been to Israel, specifically in January and can attest that crops grow there during winter at least in parts. While it does get bitterly cold in other parts, Bethlehem lies in a valley. I submit it as being possible that the shepherds could have been grazing the flocks, even in December. Either way, Luke's mention of the shepherds is incomplete to ascertain the time of year for Christ's birth.
The astronomical models and analysis is absolutely all over the place. What is supposed to be a science, seems on this question, to be nothing more than random guesses. Every month of the year is mentioned along with every possible combination of celestial event that would explain the Star of Bethlehem and thus the month or even exact day of Jesus' birth.
Further, further no one is in agreement as to what year Christ was born, so for the purposes of this hypothesis, the Bible is taken at face value and we shall examine a bit of it in historical context. The amount of information at hand is large and incomplete. The Romans and their proxies conducted census' at odd times of the year, never requiring a man to return to his hometown. In addition, taxes were also collected at various times of the year and in different manners. This all comes directly from the Roman recorders themselves, irrefutable in and of themselves. But the record truly is incomplete and what we do have to go on, paints in very wide strokes, indeed. The two salient facts of Luke's account, that is an empire wide census and that every man return to his ancestral home, can not be proved. At the moment, neither can they be disproved.
Now, my purpose is not to disprove either of those theories, only to show that there is enough doubt to provide a path to a third theory.
Luke 2:[1] And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled. [2] This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria. [3] And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city. [4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David, [5] To be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.
This is were my research begins.
First, the question.....did Caesar Augustus ever issue such a decree? Augustus himself mentions several census' one of which corresponds to a possible year of Jesus' birth (8BC), but none indicate a true empire-wide decree as described by Luke. What is well known is that he did completely change the manner in which taxes were collected. What is maddening here, is that for the life of me, I can not find out WHEN he did this. The when could entirely negate my hypothesis or add considerable weight to it.
What Augustus inherited was a tradition of 'tax farming', whereby individual citizens(or perhaps not citizens?), bid for the right to collect taxes. The winning bidder then paid the winning sum and set about collecting the taxes from the people, adding his commission. Obviously, this was a seriously flawed system, fraught with potential abuse and highly unpopular. Caesar swept this aside and instituted a much more modern system, where governors collected taxes, through a system of civil servants, with fixed rates for certain financial transaction (inheritance, sales, etc.). I believe it is logical to ask, if the entire tax code was changed, would you not need an empire-wide census? We know, full well that the historical record is incomplete, could all records of this event be lost or still hidden? Many, many Roman records of tax collection and various census taking are available to us in fragmentary form, but this event, well recorded otherwise, remains elusive. I submit that with such a radical shake-up of the tax system, an empire wide census, requiring one to return to an ancestral home is quite feasible.
So, at this point, we have a thorough cleansing/reordering of the tax system, a complete census is in order. Caesar has spoken. When do you do that?
I posit, that if you are Cyrinus (Quirinius, in other spellings), you would mold your disruptive (disruptive, because of the need to go back to ones ancestral home) census around the harvests. Today, some 3-5% of the population makes their living off of agriculture. Before the industrial revolution, that percentage was closer to it's diametric opposite, 90% of the people or more, made their living directly or indirectly from agriculture. As example, Joseph as a carpenter in a small town, would have made his bread and butter making and repairing farm equipment(and possibly fishing and boating equipment, which would fall into the same category). Blacksmiths, tanners the same. Millers go without saying. Nearly everyone was tied to the production of food and foodstuffs. So, let's take a look at the harvest schedule of Israel....
Notice that there is quite the wide variety of crops and that the first harvests are in April and end in mid November with the olive harvest. The chart that I snagged from some site, seems to be one of the more reliable, there was another chart which had an earlier start and a harvest schedule that went well into December, thus supporting my hypothesis better, but it seemed to be hacked together by an amateur. If we subtract the 60-70 days for barley to mature from April 15th (ironic, no?), we arrive at about the first week of February, for the planting of barley and winter wheat. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the olive harvest wrapping up in mid November, for the sake of argument, November 15th exactly. I believe that we should add two weeks on each end of this equation for preparation and wrap-up. This would be unpacking, planning and tilling on the one end and on the other packing, processing and storing on the other......amongst other aspects and duties of farming. Two weeks is quite conservative in my opinion. Nevertheless, that gives us from December 1st to about January 21st with most of the population having not much to do. The sowing and the reaping are done.
It should be noted that the olive harvest generated, by far the most money in ancient Israel. It was as close as they had to a cash crop and it was highly lucrative.
So, if you were Cyrinus, when would you uproot and distress the population in order to conduct a census and collect taxes? Realizing that if you do it at anytime during the harvest schedule, you will interfere with the harvest and therefore the amount of taxes collected. Your boss the Emperor, may not be too happy with you if you cost him a denarii or two. The only logical answer would be after the olive harvest, but before the winter planting. Otherwise you are interfering with the flow of food, which is, in a very real way, money and you are needlessly agitating the populous.
In conclusion, hardly complete, but submitted as food for thought.
Firstly, I intend for this to be an historical exercise, not a religious one. Secondly, this subject is vastly debated, with a very wide array of methods and sources, far too many to examine here in any depth. This is, as far as I know, an original hypothesis on my part. I have found no one else pursuing this line of reasoning.
It seems that absolutely no one believes that Jesus was actually born on December 25th. I will attempt to make the case that it is possible, if not likely that in fact, He was. I admit ahead of time, that my case is circumstantial, but based on some historical facts, followed by logical supposition (or so, I believe).
I will attempt to summarize the current theories on the day of Christ's birth.
1. He was born in the Spring or Summer. Biblically based. (I use the Douay-Rheims version)
This is based primarily on the description in the Bible, of the shepherds tending their flocks (Luke 2:8). It is assumed that the shepherds are grazing their flocks and therefore this must be in the Spring or Summer, since there would be no grass in December. Further, they would not be 'standing watch' on their flocks except outside of their farms. There is also a convoluted interpretation of The Apocalypse, that claims to prove(with some astronomical additives), that proves Jesus was born in September.
2. He was born any other time but December. Astronomically based.
The dates concluded based on astronomical observations are all over the place. Most seem to center on June, but January, September and a plethora of other dates are given for various comets, planet/star/moon conjunctions occurring and explaining the Star of Bethlehem. The closest day to traditional Christmas observation is January 6th, which is interesting, since that would quite possibly confirm a December 25th birth. Outside of my hypothesis, that can wait for another time.
I have read much on both of these theories and frankly, I find them both wanting. Accepting the Bible at face value, Luke 2:8 would seem to be almost a slam dunk. Yet, it isn't. It says nothing of the shepherds actually grazing their flocks, this is assumed. Herds or flocks of any livestock were and are valuable. Rustling occurred then and now. Even in the environs of the farm or ranch, why would you not have the hired hands keeping a close eye on your livelihood? If it was winter, this may be especially the case, when livestock would be that much more vulnerable, despite being in a barn. Further, I would submit that this is Israel, near Bethlehem(Luke 2:8 And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock). I have been to Israel, specifically in January and can attest that crops grow there during winter at least in parts. While it does get bitterly cold in other parts, Bethlehem lies in a valley. I submit it as being possible that the shepherds could have been grazing the flocks, even in December. Either way, Luke's mention of the shepherds is incomplete to ascertain the time of year for Christ's birth.
The astronomical models and analysis is absolutely all over the place. What is supposed to be a science, seems on this question, to be nothing more than random guesses. Every month of the year is mentioned along with every possible combination of celestial event that would explain the Star of Bethlehem and thus the month or even exact day of Jesus' birth.
Further, further no one is in agreement as to what year Christ was born, so for the purposes of this hypothesis, the Bible is taken at face value and we shall examine a bit of it in historical context. The amount of information at hand is large and incomplete. The Romans and their proxies conducted census' at odd times of the year, never requiring a man to return to his hometown. In addition, taxes were also collected at various times of the year and in different manners. This all comes directly from the Roman recorders themselves, irrefutable in and of themselves. But the record truly is incomplete and what we do have to go on, paints in very wide strokes, indeed. The two salient facts of Luke's account, that is an empire wide census and that every man return to his ancestral home, can not be proved. At the moment, neither can they be disproved.
Now, my purpose is not to disprove either of those theories, only to show that there is enough doubt to provide a path to a third theory.
Luke 2:[1] And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled. [2] This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria. [3] And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city. [4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David, [5] To be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.
This is were my research begins.
First, the question.....did Caesar Augustus ever issue such a decree? Augustus himself mentions several census' one of which corresponds to a possible year of Jesus' birth (8BC), but none indicate a true empire-wide decree as described by Luke. What is well known is that he did completely change the manner in which taxes were collected. What is maddening here, is that for the life of me, I can not find out WHEN he did this. The when could entirely negate my hypothesis or add considerable weight to it.
What Augustus inherited was a tradition of 'tax farming', whereby individual citizens(or perhaps not citizens?), bid for the right to collect taxes. The winning bidder then paid the winning sum and set about collecting the taxes from the people, adding his commission. Obviously, this was a seriously flawed system, fraught with potential abuse and highly unpopular. Caesar swept this aside and instituted a much more modern system, where governors collected taxes, through a system of civil servants, with fixed rates for certain financial transaction (inheritance, sales, etc.). I believe it is logical to ask, if the entire tax code was changed, would you not need an empire-wide census? We know, full well that the historical record is incomplete, could all records of this event be lost or still hidden? Many, many Roman records of tax collection and various census taking are available to us in fragmentary form, but this event, well recorded otherwise, remains elusive. I submit that with such a radical shake-up of the tax system, an empire wide census, requiring one to return to an ancestral home is quite feasible.
So, at this point, we have a thorough cleansing/reordering of the tax system, a complete census is in order. Caesar has spoken. When do you do that?
I posit, that if you are Cyrinus (Quirinius, in other spellings), you would mold your disruptive (disruptive, because of the need to go back to ones ancestral home) census around the harvests. Today, some 3-5% of the population makes their living off of agriculture. Before the industrial revolution, that percentage was closer to it's diametric opposite, 90% of the people or more, made their living directly or indirectly from agriculture. As example, Joseph as a carpenter in a small town, would have made his bread and butter making and repairing farm equipment(and possibly fishing and boating equipment, which would fall into the same category). Blacksmiths, tanners the same. Millers go without saying. Nearly everyone was tied to the production of food and foodstuffs. So, let's take a look at the harvest schedule of Israel....
Notice that there is quite the wide variety of crops and that the first harvests are in April and end in mid November with the olive harvest. The chart that I snagged from some site, seems to be one of the more reliable, there was another chart which had an earlier start and a harvest schedule that went well into December, thus supporting my hypothesis better, but it seemed to be hacked together by an amateur. If we subtract the 60-70 days for barley to mature from April 15th (ironic, no?), we arrive at about the first week of February, for the planting of barley and winter wheat. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the olive harvest wrapping up in mid November, for the sake of argument, November 15th exactly. I believe that we should add two weeks on each end of this equation for preparation and wrap-up. This would be unpacking, planning and tilling on the one end and on the other packing, processing and storing on the other......amongst other aspects and duties of farming. Two weeks is quite conservative in my opinion. Nevertheless, that gives us from December 1st to about January 21st with most of the population having not much to do. The sowing and the reaping are done.
It should be noted that the olive harvest generated, by far the most money in ancient Israel. It was as close as they had to a cash crop and it was highly lucrative.
So, if you were Cyrinus, when would you uproot and distress the population in order to conduct a census and collect taxes? Realizing that if you do it at anytime during the harvest schedule, you will interfere with the harvest and therefore the amount of taxes collected. Your boss the Emperor, may not be too happy with you if you cost him a denarii or two. The only logical answer would be after the olive harvest, but before the winter planting. Otherwise you are interfering with the flow of food, which is, in a very real way, money and you are needlessly agitating the populous.
In conclusion, hardly complete, but submitted as food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)