Jeffrey Gibson

(I'm going to assume, since you cite Pythagorasand use the Greek word "akousmatiko" (which, BTW, appears before the 2nd century CE only in the work of the 6th cent BCE Philosopher Hippasus [and, if I read him correctly, with reference to himself] , and is used by Clement of Alexandria before it appears about a century later in Porphtry and Iamblichus), that you read Greek)

The text of Pythagoras that (I think) you refer to reads:

compare Hephaestion Apotelesmatica 92.22

92.27
188.8
and 188.13
the texts in GMark and GMatthew that you refer to read respectively:

Compare this with Philo De posteritate Caini

and Philo De fuga et inventione
Deut. 29:3
Ezechiel 3: 27

Wisdom of Solomon 15
Baruch 2

Far closer to the Pythagorean text is that of Isaiah 43:8

Is this derived from Pythagorus?

Acrostic?

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

http://people.howstuffworks.com/spy3.htm

Jeffrey Gibson

Are you accusing me of willfully spreading lies, Clive? (CED).

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

Do you mean John?

Ben.

spamandham

Considering that my comment has nothing to do with Greek, and that I've told you numerous times I don't read/write Greek, this seems a rather silly assumption.

I don't see the value of your present Greek lesson.

Jeffrey Gibson

Help me out here, please. When and where did pre 1st century Pythagoreans use the Latin term "Vesicia Pisces" (which means bladder of the fish, not "fish") for the figure now known by this name?

.

Really? It seems to me that for your claim to be true, you'd have to have some evidence that the Vesica Piscenes -- which is a vertical shape that is defined, and, to my knowledge, always depicted by the Pythagoreans and all others who spoke of it or drew it, as the intersection of two circles with the same radius, intersecting in such a way that the center of each circle lies on the circumference of the other -- was represented as, or thought by Pythagoreans and others to be, a horizontal figure consisting of two intersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point.

Do you have any?

He does?? Where?

Where in Matthew and Mark can this discussion be found?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Never said it did, dd I? But it does have to do with texts.

Yes, that you don't see it is, I guess, to be expected. That my "lesson" (if that's what it is) has no value is another matter entirely.

Jeffrey

spamandham

Their use or nonuse of that term has no relevance to this discussion. "Vesica Pisces" is a modern name for an ancient symbol. You'll notice that there are no Greek letters in "Vesica Pisces".

The Vesica Pisces is *not* two circles. It's the intersection of those two circles, arrived at by drawing two circles.

You mean, like this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_in_Majesty

It's an interesting claim though that the Pythagoreans only depicted the circles horizontally. I assume you can support that with archaeological evidence.

Bah. This is probably the fourth time I've attributed this to Matthew. I don't know why I've got that etched in my brain. It's in John of course.

Mark 4:1-9
Matthew 13:1-9

Why do you ask so many questions of easily found basic facts?

Jeffrey Gibson

Of course it has relevance. If no one in antiquity thought of the symbol (if they even thought of it as a symbol -- and if so, a symbol of what?) in terms of it representing a fish, then the idea that the Christian Ichthus symbol was **obviously** derived from it (and not from a depiction or pictogram of a fish) is hardly as **obvious** as you claimed it is.

Ummm ... isn't that what I said? I mean I did say "the Vesica Piscenes ... is a vertical shape that is defined, and, to my knowledge, always depicted by the Pythagoreans and all others who spoke of it or drew it, as the intersection of two circles with the same radius", didn't I?

Which one? Do you mean the Medieval and later depictions of Jesus inside what your source notes is a form of an Aureola known as a Mandorla that symbolizes glory?

Actually, since it's your claim that the Christian Ichthus symbol is obviously derived from the Pythagorean "symbol" now known as a "Vesicia Pisces" [but in Italy as an "almond" and thought by certain groups to represent the vagina], it's your responsibility to show that the Pythagorean "symbol" was depicted horizontally as the Ichthus symbol was. And why archaeological evidence -- which, unless bearing a notice that the image inscribed was specifically an illustration of a mathematical concept, would be evidentially ambiguous? Why not mathematical texts?

Because I see no "discussion of 30-60-100" anywhere in Matthew and/or in Mark, let alone immediately after these evangelists have Jesus say "let the one who has ears hear", where you claimed one appears. I see Matthew and Mark having Jesus speak of soils that produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times more than what might be expected" using language (i.e. ὃ μὲν ἑκατόν, ὃ δὲ ἑξήκοντα, ὃ δὲ τριάκοντα [Mt]; ἓν τριάκοντα καὶ ἓν ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἓν ἑκατόν [Mk]) that does not appear in any Phythagorean text or discussion of Pythagorus' views (but which mirrors that which is found in Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 13.82.2.2 ἔστι δὲ ὁ νεὼς ἔχων τὸ μὲν μῆκος πόδας τριακοσίους τεσσαράκοντα, τὸ δὲ πλάτος ἑξήκοντα, τὸ δὲ ὕψος ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι χωρὶς τοῦ κρηπιδώματος} and in Hippocrates De morbis popularibus 1.3.12.5 and in Josephus AJ 8).

Sorry, but upon inspection what you see as obvious and certain is hardly so. And your claims about what is obvious and certain are not only uninformed ones, but are based on eisegesis.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

BTW, where does the idea that 30-60-100 were the "first three significant "triangle numbers" of the Pythagoreans" come from?

In what Pythagorean text or ancient discussion of Pythagoras/Pythagoraeas is this set out?

Jeffrey