PDA

View Full Version : The Kookaburra Jack collection of historical hypotheses


Pages : 1 [2]

Kookaburra Jack
16th May 2011, 09:02 PM
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/population_graph.JPG
The picture is made up and devoid of facts or even the basics of integrity in charting.

Here's a list of what the chart shows:

0. ZERO population before the year 312 CE
1. Title - "early Christian popln growth as % - 300 to 350 CE
2. verticle axis = percentage - showing between 0 and 50
3. horizontal axis = years from 300 to 350.
4. Red Colour coded graph following Stark for the period being graphed shows an increase from 10% to 50%
5.Green graph, marked "Alternative scenario" shows increase from 0 to 25% around the year 325 CE.

The picture is explicitly designed to present both Stark's AND the alternative population models in the one diagram for comparison.

As you appear to be vehemently opposed to the chart, it would help if you made a suggestion on how the chart might be improved.

Kookaburra Jack
16th May 2011, 09:29 PM
@KJack: Is history-hunters international a peer-reviewed, academic journal?

No. (http://historyhuntersinternational.org/about/)

Busted.


It's the closest support I have to peer review.
These guys are long term professional archaeologists.

Anyway, what happens prior to peer review? How many people in this discussion forum are required to demonstrate peer-review in order to discuss new ideas? Have you ever heard of catch-22?

You also have not substantiated your claim that my work is "pseudoscholarship". You are accusing me of "pseudoscholarship" but you are providing no reasons. The fact that my work has not yet been peer-reviewed is not sufficient to label it "pseudoscholarship".



Basically, you'd have a few authentic historians agreeing with your hypothesis by now if it had any merit.

We are talking about "new ideas".
I used to call them theses.
I changed the name to "new ideas".

Sometimes it takes a while to change our idea of history.


The hypothesis that there exists evidence for the existence of christianity prior to the 4th century has always been accepted as a given. As far as I am aware, I may be the first to make a comprehensive list of all the evidence that has been presented (taken from contemporary sources), and to critically question each element, and there are many.

Peer reviewed Christians and the Apologists and all the Biblical Scholars reject the claim because they assert that the new testament is true and written in the 1st century, and that the history of the church written by Eusebius in the 4th century is a true account.

Ancient historians in general admit that there is a great scarecity of evidence prior to the 4th century. It is true that none of them so far have claimed this great scarcity of evidence is a vacuum. However, some have gone close.

Robin Lane-Fox has only a small list of citations in his recent book which he thinks may represent evidence of christians before the 4th century.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/RLF_exceptions.htm

At the above article I summarise all these items and provide alternative explanations as to why these items of evidence do not represent unambiguous evidence.

Kookaburra Jack
16th May 2011, 09:44 PM
Whatever the history hunters guys may be (apart from an anonymous collective on a blog), they would probably have piddled themselves laughing over your "pictures of Constantine and Jesus" attempt.

That was not even pseudoscholarship: it was pure piffle.

You misunderstood the exchange.

The issue that I was responding to was that of "Early Christian Art". I was pointing out that there are no early art renditions of Jesus. If you have a look at the scholarship on "Christian Art" you will see that there is an explosion of Emperor-like renditions of Jesus from the 4th century onwards, and nothing before, except images of "The Good Shepherd" and a series of murals, claimed to present Christian themes, from a purported early christian "house-church" at Dura-Europos.

As an example ...

The Clash of Gods is written to free Early Christian art of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries from what Mathews calls "the incubus of imperial interpretation" (p. 179). A previous tradition of art history, in his opinion, had imposed on the interpretation of this art "The Mistake of the Emperor Mystique": that is, it was claimed that much of the Christian art of the period was consciously derived from prototypes in imperial art. And with the art came the ideology attached to such an art. By borrowing from imperial models in this manner, late Roman Christians were assumed to have swathed the figure of Christ in a thick wrapping of "latent memories" that charged his figure with the absolutist power of a Roman emperor.

The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art. - book reviews
Art Bulletin, The, Sept, 1995 by Peter Brown
THOMAS F. MATHEWS Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993

Kookaburra Jack
16th May 2011, 09:49 PM
Perhaps you would do better publishing your findings on Historyhunters, KJack?

Not sure at the moment.

Kookaburra Jack
16th May 2011, 09:53 PM
Arguing from absence again, KJ?


What do you mean? My entire argument and claim is that we have no certain ncient historical evidence (in art, or stone, etc) to support the generally accepted hypothesis (GIVEN) that christianity existed before the 4th century.


Do consider that xtianity grew from a religion where it was not allowed to portray the divine.

What are you saying? What religion did it grow from? When?

Xeno
16th May 2011, 10:00 PM
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/population_graph.JPG


Here's a list of what the chart shows:

0. ZERO population before the year 312 CE
1. Title - "early Christian popln growth as % - 300 to 350 CE
2. verticle axis = percentage - showing between 0 and 50
3. horizontal axis = years from 300 to 350.
4. Red Colour coded graph following Stark for the period being graphed shows an increase from 10% to 50%
5.Green graph, marked "Alternative scenario" shows increase from 0 to 25% around the year 325 CE.

The picture is explicitly designed to present both Stark's AND the alternative population models in the one diagram for comparison.

As you appear to be vehemently opposed to the chart, it would help if you made a suggestion on how the chart might be improved.Two improvements, in descending order of utility:

1. Don't show it. It's fucking useless. Your original proposal was "Here's a chart, let's discuss it." whereas it is not a chart, it is a personal drawing, and hence not objectively discussible independently from your [unsupported] thesis.

2. Chart all of Stark's data, not just two points, so that people can immediately see the model he proposes. I am prepared to bet that hardly anyone who was not already familiar with Stark recognised from your figures alone that he was using a log-exponential model, prior to me pointing it out. Had you charted all of his figures, it would have been pretty obvious immediately. Your chart, like many in the popular press, seeks to mislead or to deceive.

If you don't get it, I guess you just don't get it.

Edit: apropos the misleading character of the chart, where does it say "Line A is a plausible mathematical model, not data, and line B is completely made up"?

Kookaburra Jack
16th May 2011, 10:12 PM
KJack, I'm talking about a cult that grew from Judaism.

The cult is characterised by its fanatical following of a series of "New Testament" books which were first written in the Greek language. My point is that we have no real evidence of this cult until the 4th century, despite the storyline in the new testament, setting it to the 1st century.

Kookaburra Jack
16th May 2011, 10:21 PM
Had you charted all of his figures, it would have been pretty obvious immediately.

The problem here is that I have assumed the reader to have knowledge of the Stark model. This was an incorrect assumption in this forum. I have been involved in discussions elsewhere about this model published by stark and supported by a number of other authors.


Your chart, like many in the popular press, seeks to mislead or to deceive.

Edit: apropos the misleading character of the chart, where does it say "Line A is a plausible mathematical model, not data, and line B is completely made up"?

The chart represents the summary of my research into the evidence of christianity prior to the 4th century. LINE A is a plausible mathematical model offered by Stark. LINE B is an alternative plausible mathematical model based on my research.

Kookaburra Jack
16th May 2011, 10:39 PM
There is a lot of Judaism in the cult, is there not?

Nothing. How much Ojibway was there in Longfellow's "Song of Hiawatha"?

Most say there is alot of Greek and Plato in the cult.
The cult wrote in the Greek language.
Anyone who learnt Greek, learnt Plato etc.

For example see The Legacy of Greece

"The teachings of Plato", says Justin, "are not alien to those of Christ;
and the same is true of the Stoics." "Heraclitus and Socrates lived in'
accordance to the divine Logos" and should be recognised as Christians.
Clement says that Plato wrote "by the inspiration of God".

Augustine, much later, finds that "only a few words and phrases" need
to be changed to bring Platonism into complete accord with Christianity.
And your Constantine assertion is still a very long bow to draw.

Now whether or not you argue me into non-replying due to fatigue or boredom, you have won nothing.I am interested in the evidence itself.
I have made a study of it.
I too do not seek unproductive argument.
I simply seek the discussion of the ideas.
The presentation of evidence, etc



Go and get some proper historians to support your hypothesis, skewed infographics and all, I agree with this advice.
I am trying to get my ideas examined.
And discussed.


or you're still just this possible nutter with a singular hypothesis.You appear to have reduced your estimation of "pseudoscholar" to "possible nutter". I suppose I should accept this as a small gain.

New ideas are precisely that.
I am not claiming infallibility.
I could be wrong.
If I am - then I will be one of the 1st if not the 1st to admit it.
Hence the value of discussion.

RealityRules
16th May 2011, 11:08 PM
How do you deal with Pliny The Younger and Suetonius' accounts of the cult?

they were just the most passing of references to the early christians.

a blog fromn a theologican
http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/05/12/defending-constantine-final-thoughts/

Xeno
17th May 2011, 10:22 AM
The problem here is that I have assumed the reader to have knowledge of the Stark model. This was an incorrect assumption in this forum. It was careless, at best.

The chart represents the summary of my research into the evidence of christianity prior to the 4th century. LINE A is a plausible mathematical model offered by Stark. LINE B is an alternative plausible mathematical model based on my research.For the umpteenth fucking time, Line A is two points, not a representation of a mathematical model. That you don't get this suggests either ignorance of charting or intended deceit. In fact, I suspect the former with regard to this chart. Anyone who knew the subject would acknowledge their action whereas you merely repeat the errors and pile up the excuses like so much horseshit.

Line B is not a mathematical model based on any equation you have quoted or claimed. It is an assertion about a massive change, arbitrarily assigned data points. Again, there is nothing in your words to suggest you have the slightest idea about what you are talking with regard to a model or a chart.

I will keep talking about this apparently trivial matter for so long as you keep ducking and weaving, trying to evade your false representation. This will give casual readers repeated opportunities to understand your mis-representations, and perhaps to observe that in arguments it is better not to play with that which you do not understand.

Kookaburra Jack
17th May 2011, 11:04 AM
The Irreverent Mr Black][/b]
How do you deal with Pliny The Younger and Suetonius' accounts of the cult?


they were just the most passing of references to the early christians.

a blog fromn a theologican
http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/05/12/defending-constantine-final-thoughts/


Additionally

re: Pliny - The manuscript is quite late. From the WIKIpage on Plny:

Manuscripts

In France Giovanni Giocondo discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger's letters containing his correspondence with Trajan. He published it in Paris dedicating the work to Louis XII. Two Italian editions of Pliny's Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508 re: Suetonius

A number of authors have reconstructed the Suetonius reference, as though it were a later interpolation by christians. Here is one example:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/review_EVOCC.htm
A review of Jay Raskin's recent book includes the Suetonius reference.


In general

Have a quick look at a corresponding reference to the christians that has been found in the writings of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, in his book "Meditations". The translators who presented the translation of this book both make reference to the presence of "christians" in the text as a margin gloss, that has been interpolated into the text.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/author_Marcus_Aurelius.htm

Kookaburra Jack
17th May 2011, 11:30 AM
For the umpteenth fucking time, Line A is two points, not a representation of a mathematical model. That you don't get this suggests either ignorance of charting or intended deceit. In fact, I suspect the former with regard to this chart. Anyone who knew the subject would acknowledge their action whereas you merely repeat the errors and pile up the excuses like so much horseshit.

Stark provides data for a model of the % christian population in the Roman Empire from the 1st to the 4th century, which reaches 50% just after the middle of the 4th century.

If you have been following my arguments and claims here, you should understand that I am supporting the position that we have no evidence for the existence of "christians" until the year 324/325 CE, and that the appearance of christians coincides with a massive military-backed revolution under Constantine at that time when he had obtained complete and supreme military power in the eastern empire.



Line B is not a mathematical model based on any equation you have quoted or claimed. It is an assertion about a massive change, arbitrarily assigned data points. Again, there is nothing in your words to suggest you have the slightest idea about what you are talking with regard to a model or a chart. The model and the chart were designed to compare the Stark model and an alternative model (i.e.of % christian population) for the period in question, GIVEN that we have no evidence prior to the year 324 CE.

Therefore I am only interested in the Stark estimate between the years of 300 and 350 CE, because as far as I am concerned, we may represent a zero % christian population between the 1st century and the year 312 or 324 CE. Consequently I have not presented the earliuer centuries on the graph, I have presented a portion of the graph only. Have you ever seen a map insert?



I will keep talking about this apparently trivial matter for so long as you keep ducking and weaving, trying to evade your false representation. This will give casual readers repeated opportunities to understand your mis-representations, and perhaps to observe that in arguments it is better not to play with that which you do not understand.You do what you think is necessary. My arguments for treating and presenting a ZERO % christian population are outlined atmy website here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/

I do not see the gradual rising of "christian evidence" in my examination and study of the ancient historical evidence. What I see is a boundary event in the year 324 CE, at which time, out of nothing, a christian population emerges under a massive cultural and religious revolution instigated by the Emperor Constantine.

Finally, here is a quote from a recent academic author that presents the political situation in the Roman empire ONCE Constantine obtained complete military control:

Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9475%28198421%29105%3A1%3C69%3ACPOPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P)
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72




On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

Kookaburra Jack
17th May 2011, 11:55 AM
Alas, KJck, you've fucked around with facts and figures so much I am not inclined to read your stuff, let alone trust it.

Let's just set this straight.

I am not, nor have ever, asked anyone to accept my ideas as anything but a series of new ideas in ancient history. They are advertised as NEW IDEAS not facts. They relate to EVIDENCE and its interpretation.


Lots of quantum foam on that site of yours, anyhow.

Most of this belongs to Reg Cahill from Flinders Uni in SA and his published ideas about "Process Physics". I put all of his papers on my website quite some years ago, following discussions with him. I think he may have been the one to coin the term "quantum foam", or at least he appears to be using this term throughout his series of papers.


Where's the academically-published, peer-reviewed agreement by a recognised historian?

NEW IDEAS are not immediately accepted and recognised. Obviously I seek to have the ideas academically-published, peer-reviewed agreement by a recognised historian, and I have at least attempted this with JHL. You did read the Referee Report?

Fearless
17th May 2011, 12:02 PM
Then the island was the correct choice for further discussion at this point.

So what steps can be taken from here to attempt to validate your studies? If you feel this committed then do you need help in getting it reviewed properly?

Can't say I know how but surely someone might.

Then more energy can be directed the right way and you can update us with your progress.

I don't know, this is just crazy the way things are going.

Xeno
17th May 2011, 12:17 PM
For the umpteenth fucking time, Line A is two points, not a representation of a mathematical model. That you don't get this suggests either ignorance of charting or intended deceit. In fact, I suspect the former with regard to this chart. Anyone who knew the subject would acknowledge their action whereas you merely repeat the errors and pile up the excuses like so much horseshit Stark provides data for a model of the % christian population in the Roman Empire from the 1st to the 4th century, which reaches 50% just after the middle of the 4th century.And you fail to expose that model or its origins openly to readers, and avoid the admission ever after, having just done it again.

<untested internet opinions>Who cares? I am calling you on misrepresentation, not your ideas.

The model and the chart were designed to compare the Stark model and an alternative model (i.e.of % christian population) for the period in question, GIVEN that we have no evidence prior to the year 324 CE. To which I reiterate Line B is not a mathematical model based on any equation you have quoted or claimed. It is an assertion about a massive change, arbitrarily assigned data points. Again, there is nothing in your words to suggest you have the slightest idea about what you are talking with regard to a model or a chart.

Consequently I have not presented the earliuer centuries on the graph, I have presented a portion of the graph only. Have you ever seen a map insert? Yes, for an understood map. You are making two marks of of unexplained provenance on the paper, drawing something else you like, and presenting it for discussion as if it were meaningful.

You do what you think is necessary. <more internet opinions>I am.

Xeno
17th May 2011, 12:20 PM
I'd go with the lines from Fearless and Mr Black, KJ. You agree you need confirmation of your view. The original peer review was none too flattering. I guess some work needs to be done in the academic domain rather than on this forum.

Kookaburra Jack
17th May 2011, 01:29 PM
I'd go with the lines from Fearless and Mr Black, KJ. You agree you need confirmation of your view. The original peer review was none too flattering. I guess some work needs to be done in the academic domain rather than on this forum.

Then the island was the correct choice for further discussion at this point.

So what steps can be taken from here to attempt to validate your studies? If you feel this committed then do you need help in getting it reviewed properly?

Can't say I know how but surely someone might.

Then more energy can be directed the right way and you can update us with your progress.

Hi Fearless, Xeno, Mr. Black,

I may well benefit from specific guidance and help in getting my ideas reviewed properly. My thoughts are to send my recent essays to people involved in the faculty of ancient history either at Sydney or Macquarie Unis or both, and somehow politely request a review of these essays, or a referee's report.

I have opened discussions on the Historum Forum, and am awaiting further comments on the ideas that I have presented there to date.
See http://www.historum.com/ancient-history/

I am open to any other suggestions in this area.
Such as where I might send sample articles, essays, etc.



Best wishes


KJ

nibble
20th March 2012, 12:08 PM
KJack, have you come across the claims made on this site:-

http://www.jesus-islam.org/Pages/WasJesusdeityinventedinthe4thcentury.aspx

Seamus
20th March 2012, 03:08 PM
@Nibble: KJack is on hiatus, and hasn't been seen here for a while.

While his published slur on the AFA remains, I for one would not welcome his return.



Don't worry,he's still around. I've seen him on a couple of other forums,where people were equally unimpressed.

Presenting his thesis on Historum Forum,which has some professional historians, did not end happily.

My impression is that the bloke is sincere enough but is not a trained scholar and is a bit obsessive.

The phrase 'crackpot fringe' springs to mind, I don't know why:rolleyes:

nibble
20th March 2012, 09:26 PM
Thanks. Was totally unaware :o

Kookaburra Jack
13th November 2013, 04:04 PM
Presenting his thesis on Historum Forum,which has some professional historians, did not end happily.

Discussions there are ongoing.

FYI I have commenced a BA in Ancient History.

Perhaps people here might be interested in taking a moment to sign a petition to the British Library for the C14 dating of two of the most ancient bibles.

https://www.change.org/petitions/british-library-c14-dating-of-ancient-bibles

Am I supposed to post in this thread forever?

If not, which is the appropriate forum to post this petition?

wolty
13th November 2013, 04:15 PM
Am I supposed to post in this thread forever?

If not, which is the appropriate forum to post this petition?

You can start a new thread on Fantasy Island if you want.

Kookaburra Jack
20th November 2013, 05:05 PM
Thanks wolty.


Another question ... I assume I do not have the right to use the PM system. Is this correct?

Kookaburra Jack
6th March 2014, 01:59 PM
Frequently asked questions on Fantasy Island
Can you get off Fantasy Island?
Yes! Once you have demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Moderation Team, that you are willing and able to post in accordance with the forum rules you will be reinstated to your previous status.




Question for the moderation team:

I would like to request some feedback on my "willingness and ability" to post in accordance with the forum rules.

Thanks.


KJ

wolty
6th March 2014, 02:03 PM
Thanks wolty.


Another question ... I assume I do not have the right to use the PM system. Is this correct?

Frequently asked questions on Fantasy Island
Can you get off Fantasy Island?
Yes! Once you have demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Moderation Team, that you are willing and able to post in accordance with the forum rules you will be reinstated to your previous status.

Question for the moderation team:

I would like to request some feedback on my "willingness and ability" to post in accordance with the forum rules.

Thanks.


KJ


Looking into this, will get back to you.

Kookaburra Jack
23rd May 2014, 03:16 PM
Looking into this, will get back to you.



Are There Any Statues of Jesus In The First Three Centuries?
http://historum.com/ancient-history/69792-there-any-statues-jesus-first-three-centuries.html


.