Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 02 2003 - 08:00:52 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: UK GCSE Answers"

     I simply cannot understand what you are saying below and the sequence of
    numbers is unintelligible.
    In fact what you have done is to demonstrate that the bible is probably
    allegory as CKBarrett argues. See below on the 153.

    Vernon your arguments boomerang against the Bible. This is my concern.

    Michael
    >
    > Among the clear certainties of life we may observe the following:
    >
    > Taking any multiple of 3 (as normally expressed as a denary, or base-10,
    > object) and summing the cubes of its digits - repeating the process as
    many
    > times as may be necessary to obtain a final stable outcome - we find that
    > outcome invariably to be 153 - the 17th triangular number. Here are two
    > examples which demonstrate the principle:
    >
    > 3 -> 27 (ie 3^3) -> 351 (ie 2^3 + 7^3) -> 153 -> 153 ...
    >
    > 1624623 -> 540 -> 189 -> 1242 -> 81 -> 513 -> 153 ...
    >
    > In other words, this simple digit transform converts one third of all
    > natural numbers (as normally represented) to the number of fishes caught
    by
    > Peter and his companions. Observe the significance of 3 in Jn.21: this was
    > the 3rd time Jesus had appeared to the disciples since his resurrection;
    he
    > questions Peter 3 times; 153 has 3 digits.
    > The number of disciples involved in the event was 7 - another number
    having
    > a clear biblical significance..
    >
    > John, along with Peter, had earlier been judged by the Sanhedrin to be
    > "unlearned and ignorant men" (Acts 4:13). Clearly therefore John's
    including
    > the detail, "153 fishes...yet was not the net broken",
    > in the last chapter of his gospel is as mysterious as his building an
    > accurate value of the universal constant 'e' into the numerics of his
    first
    > verse!

    What do you mean?

    >
    > These matters provide tangible, and in my view, conclusive evidence that
    the
    > real Author of the gospel that carries his name was not John, but the
    Lord.
    > And that should encourages one to believe the whole Book to be God's word
    to
    > man - and hence essentially immune to the depredations of the higher
    critics
    > and others.

    So much for that . Dealing with the 153 the NT scholar CKBarrett in his
    commentary says (p484) This observation increases the probability that other
    features of the story (in ch21) shouild be taken allegorically.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 02 2003 - 08:08:28 EDT