Jeffrey Gibson

Actually what I said was that "to my knowledge", the VC is "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,' and then I asked you to provide me with anything that might show my knowledge on this point deficient.

It is if you want to say, as you apparently do, that it is patently obvious to anyone that this figure



is derived from this:



(note that the figure now but not always known as the VC always -- at least to my knowledge -- is one that has, and is depicted as having, the rest of the cirscles that intersect and not just the area of the intersection)

You did implicitly when you claimed that the Christian fish symbol obviously derives from the mathematical figure which came to be known as the Vesica Pisces, didn't you?

I mean, who would immediately take this



or even this:



(neither of which were apparently ever seen in antiquity as being particularly fish like), rather than a pictogram of a fish or as a pictorial representation of the word ICTHUS, to be the source of this:



If it were so taken in the ancient world, wouldn't we see more uses of the latter as a substitute for the former?



[/quote]

Exactly what? Where is the/a discussion of the numbers 30, 60, and 100 in Mk. 4:1-11 or Mt. 13?

And by the way, where is your documentation of your claim, the validity of which is a necessary condition of the truth of your assertion about Pythagoreanism standing behind this (non) discussion, that 30, 60, and 100 were "the first 3 significant "triangle numbers" of the Pythagoreans"?

What is the "these" that I am purportedly ignoring? If any one here is ignoring things, it's you.

Leaving aside your question begging apriori that 153 was a Pythagorean number/symbol, not to mention your question begging assumption that the author of GJohn was writing to people who would "get" the alleged reference to a number that (you have yet to show) was "Pythagorean" in any way, are you actually saying that anyone who does not who do not see the number as Pythagorean and who have another understanding of what, if anything beyond a large catch, the number was intended by the author of (the epilogue of ) GJohn to signify, is an apologist? What are they being an apologist for?

Jeffrey

spamandham

Ah, I see. Ok then, I hereby formally tack "to my knowledge" onto all my posts thus far in this thread. It's now up to you to prove I don't have that knowledge, if you wish to continue.