At 06:06 pm 26-02-05 -0800, you wrote: >...or, in Gnostic understanding, was Christianity originally >a Pythagorean off-shoot? > >One more thing about this particular religious symbol which >I forgot to mention, for those who enjoy religious >symbolism, Gnostic mythology and codes ... and thankfully do >not have to risk incurring the wrath of the Benedictines >;-) > >Some have interpreted the Vesica Piscis as evidence of the >Gnostic contention that Jesus, his disciples, and the sect >he belonged to was a Pythagorean sect instead of an Essene >or other Jewish offshoot group (there is much debate as to >which sect), but this Pythagorean connection would be highly >doubtful, had not thousands died believing it, and had not >Jesus' brother James and others who took up his cause (Paul) >been practicing Jews. Most of the Gnostics slaughtered and >burned at the stake for believing in the Pythagorean >connection being the aforementioned Albigensians. Had Jesus >spoken Greek, however, instead of Aramaic, it would be a >closer call as brothers often do take separate spiritual >paths. So far as I can tell, there is some, but little good >evidence that Jesus spoke Greek, or if there is clear >evidence, it is buried in some catacomb under Rome that was >missed in Angels and Demons, along with the Gospel of Mary. >http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-2/msg00315.html > >According to St. John, who was Greek, but is not believed to >a contemporary, Jesus performed his first public miracle at >a wedding feast in Cana, when he turned water into wine >(John 2:1-11). Side note >> similarly, earlier Greek myth >had Dionysus turning water into wine at his own wedding to >Ariadne . Also in John, Jesus miraculously helped Peter and >other disciples catch a large number of fish at the Sea of >Galilee -- 153 fish, to be precise (John 21 : 11). Note: >Christianity originally first turned up in all the exact >places where Pythagorean sects were predominant (so called >Asia minor), leading some to think it spread through this >vector initially, before Paul and Peter took charge and >spread it to Rome. > >The great mathematician Pythagoras, according to his >disciples - which sects had been spreading for 500 years or >so before Jesus, also performed this very same supernatural >feat with fish. Since far more ancient times, the original >"fish story" has been part of a mathematical ratio called >"the measure of the fish," which produces the mystical >symbol of the vesica piscis (or pisces). This is the Icthus, >or sign of the fish, which of course, is still widely used >today as a symbol of Christianity. Icthus is a Greek word >long associated with the Pythagoreans for hundreds of years >prior to Jesus. > >Pythagoras' disciples established religious communities >throughout the Greek world and some of them were in Galilee. >All were vegetarians but ate fish. The number 12 was a >common theme. Men and women were admitted equally, they took >vows of celibacy and all possessions were held in common. >Oil was used in the rites. Celibacy was defined somewhat >differently than we do today - basically it meant no >commitment to a single individual, what we would call a >romantic commitment. All wore white robes. Pythagoras >himself was reputed to have worked many miracles of healing, >including reviving several dead people. He was said to be >the son of a god, Apollo, and born of a mortal mother, who >was called "Parthenesis", which means virgin. The word >"Parthenon" is a temple dedicated to a virgin, often her >name is Athena, but she is also called Madonna. > >Like the great vegetarian miracle worker Pythagoras, Jesus >is strangely associated with fish, but not only real fish, >rather an allegorical code to explain a deep mystical >relationships. The Pythagoreans had a diagram of 2 >intersecting circles, one above, one below, with the >circumference of one touching the center of the other. The 2 >circles represented the spiritual and the material domains. >The "transcendental" region where the circles intersect >resembles a fish shape-exactly as used as the symbol for >Christianity. The Pythagoreans even gave this symbol its >latinized name, vesica piscis. The ratio of the height of >this fish symbol to its length is 153 : 265, which is the >*nearest whole number ratio to the square root of 3* (1.732 >...) and the controlling ratio of the equilateral triangle. > >Anyway, remember that key symbolic number =153. Now the >stories of both Pythagoras and Jesus have them telling >disciple fishermen - who have failed to catch fish all day, >to now cast their nets again. Miraculously, the nets come in >full. Pythagoras was said to have correctly predicted the >exact number of fish caught but the mystic number is not >revealed, after all it is a Gnostic story. But in the Gospel >story of Jesus the number of fish caught is given by St. >John, a Greek, as exactly 153. > >Coincidence? Dan Brown missed his chance in Angels & Demons >(don't waste your time with that one) but the NT book of >John is my favorite by far, and if some new Dead Sea Scroll >should turn up with you-know-who speaking you-know-what, >then duck and cover... as who knows what is on the way... >what do those four horsemen represent, anyway? >http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/earth2.htm > >Jones > >
That's wonderful stuff Jones. You are an amazing fellow. I fear you polymath talents are somewhat wasted here. You should be writing your autobiography or something. I'm sure Flambeau's real life story would be a damn sight more interesting than Da Vinci Code rubbish. As for regretting your recommendation last year for me to read DVC, you needn't have worried that I took you seriously. For me, Father Brown's fiction contains far more truth than Dan Brown's factoids. You write, > The ratio of the height of this fish symbol to its length > is 153 : 265, which is the nearest whole number ratio to > the square root of 3 You meant, of course, > The ratio of the LENGTH of this fish symbol to its HEIGHT > is 265 : 153, which is the nearest whole number ratio to > the square root of 3. If I were a pedantic mathematician I would point out that the square root of three is irrational anyway so there must inevitably be nearer whole number ratios. For example:- root three = 1.732051 265/153 = 1.732026 abs.diff. = 0.000025 whereas 265004/153000 = 1.732052 abs.diff. = 0.000001 But if I were a Bob Park and really wanted to rain on the parade I would seize on your fact about the equilateral triangle and point out that jiggling water molecules can be thought of as occupying spherical regions like so many cannon balls. These will naturally give rise to triangular arrangements. If we were not mesmerized by orthogonal axis but capable of adopting a sixfold geometry of the tetrahedron edge, then the notion of root 3 would never even arise. But if we were all like Park the world would be an awfully dull place. No poetry, no art, no music, no romance, no greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his fiends. God doesn't force men to believe against their will. The Christmas story is about "peace to men of good will. [Lk - 2:14]". Men of "good will" notice - not the Bob Parks of this world. I suppose the ultimate exemplifier of Parkian bad will was the writer, Emile Zola. Consider this excerpt.... ============================================================== http://www.marxists.org/archive/haldane/works/1930s/lunn.htm Most rationalists, however, are not prepared to consider for a moment any evidence, however strong, for the miraculous. Zola, unable to explain a cure at Lourdes which he had investigated, added, "I don't believe in miracles: even if all the sick in Lourdes were cured in one moment I would NOT BELIEVE in them!" Clearly this attitude is founded not on reason but on faith-- faith in the dogma that miracles do not occur. ============================================================== A bit like Bob's faith that Cold Fusions don't occur. .....and this, ============================================================== http://www.tfp.org/magazine/mag73/lourdes_medical.htm Mr. Vidigal: The doctor in charge of this office at the time of the writer Emil Zola had a debate with him, isn’t it true? Dr. Theillier: True. Zola, interested in finding out more about the shrine in Lourdes, paid a visit at the end of the 19th century. Doctor Boissarie, one of my predecessors, opened the doors of the medical office to him, and the writer had the opportunity to witness the true miraculous cures of two young women whose cases we have in our files to this day. Upon his return to Paris, Zola wrote his book about Lourdes. In it he recounts faithfully these two miracles and only changed the name of the young women. The problem is that he tampered with reality when he added that the two had a relapse and died of their illnesses. This is absolutely false. Doctor Boissarie went to Paris and looked him up. At a public conference, he challenged Zola, demonstrating that he had changed the truth. Zola answered that he was a fiction writer who had the right to introduce whatever he wished in his books. In reality, both young women were truly cured of their ailments, never had a relapse, and lived to old age. ============================================================== Now that REALLY takes the biscuit for bad will, eh! I don't think even Parkie would go THAT far. 8-) Still, just because someone who for most of his life is a resolute agnostic, he is not necessarily of bad will when it comes to recognising the existence of the supernatural. Consider the case of the Nobel laureate, Alexis Carrel (1873-1944)... ============================================================== http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/VOYLOUR.HTM ============================================================== ...and I'm confident Flambeau will react like the good thief when he is brought face to face with his own miracle. ;-) Cheers Frank
