# Talk:Miraculous catch of fish

WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Bible (Rated Start-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

## Unique property ?

There are other numbers. See this link =

sum of cubes digits - OEIS Search Results "FORMULA

A055012(n) = n iff n is in A046197 = {0, 1, 153, 370, 371, 407}. -" http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=sum+of+cubes+digits&sort=0&fmt=0&language=english&go=Search --193.56.241.75 14:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed "unique" to "rare", thanks for the heads up. Feel free to make changes directly also. --Dv82matt 04:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

## Verifiability

This whole article seems to be based on a single web page. Is there any evidence that this is not an idiosyncratic concept? -- The Anome 07:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the prod notice. I did a google search and it appears to be based on more than just a single web page. [1] --Dv82matt 08:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want an earlier reference, you could read Porphyry and Plato which touch briefly upon it (e.g. in Timaeus), Porphyry recounting that Pythagoras caught 153 fish in a single catch of the net from the side of a boat. "On the Measurement of the Cycle" (Archimedes) also mentions "the measure of the fish" in this 153/vesica piscis context. The significantly more modern "City of Revelation" by Mitchell covers this topic, and goes into detail on the gematria and isopsephia aspects. You could also read "Musings on the Vesica Piscis" - an article in "Nexus Network Journal" (ISSN: 1590-5869) Volume 6, Number 2 (a maths + architecture journal). Clinkophonist 17:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Archimedes does NOT in fact say this, as can be seen by reading the work online, nor is Pythagoras described as catching 153 fish. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

## "153 = 1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3x3"?

Well, I think it should be "135 = 1x1x1 + 3x3x3 + 5x5x5"

I hope someone can notice it and give me an answer before I edited it, thank you very much:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LQY (talkcontribs) 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I thought the same myself, then realized I was only doing 1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3 = 1 + 125 + 9 = 135; if you correctly cube 3 you get 1 + 125 + 27 = 153. Fasrad 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

## 153?

Where did that number come from. --CPATS1 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The article seems garbled and colloquial. What is the in-joke? It is not too clear. One possibility: The ratio 153:265 can be used to create two intersecting arcs that create a fish symbol--or is it that the height of this symbol is 153 units to a length of 265 units. This is discussed by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their book "The Jesus Mysteries." I believe it might also be discussed by Robert Price in one of his books, perhaps "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man," or perhaps he is more struck by the parallel to Pythagoras counting 153 fish. But then, Pythagoras would also know about the ratio. So the joke is that there were 153 fish because 153 happens to be part of the fish ratio. Milesnfowler (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Or, most likely, it simply indicates that there were 153 fish caught, and is indicative of an eyewitness account. Paul Srch 15:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSrch (talkcontribs)
There were 153 fish caught. 265:153 is the first whole number approximation of the square root of 3 which arise from the vesica piscis in that the ratio of the long width to the short height is the square root of 3. Pbhj (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

## Connections

The Gospel of John has a lot of complex connections. This is simply one of them. The number 153 is a triangular number, as mentioned. If you take the numbers 1 to 17 and add them, you get 153 (1+2+3...+17 = 153). But why 17? The number in John 21:11 refers to a catch of fish. The entire segment, taken as a whole, includes a breakfast "feeding" consisting of bread and fish (v.13), leading to Jesus instructing Peter to "feed my lambs/sheep" (v.15f). This is to connect all the way back to Chapter 6 of John, the only other place where a feeding consisting of bread and fish occurs in this gospel. Chapter 6 is referred to, sometimes, as the "Bread of Life Discourse". Here, there are five barley loaves (and two fish). After this feeding, the "fragments" are collected into twelve baskets. 5 + 12 = 17.

The purpose of this in the author's mind (I believe...I've never seen this in any book or scholarly publication that I know, I must admit) contrasts the 5000 (a military reference) seeking to be "fed" against the disciples of Chapter 21. Contrast the bread "fragments" of Chapter 6 to the net that was not torn in Chapter 21. Perhaps the author was influenced, directly or indirectly, by Pythagorean philosophy, but I think he/she was just being clever. By using a triangular number, the author is able to maintain his/her symbology without it have to explicitly refer to a distinct entity...a number of theories about '153' speculate on the number of individual churches or species of fish in the Sea of Tiberias/Galilee. By using a triangular number, the author remains free to maintain a mystical theology without pinning it to a physical quantity that can and will change.

--Donovan 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

## 153 in Jewish literature

I know it is ever so fun to speculate with regard to Graeco-Roman mystery influences but the fact that we are talking about the Gospel of John, wouldn't it make much more sense to go to Jewish writings from the end of the Second Temple period for the answer?

We have a wealth of parallels to Jewish documents (such as sons of light, communal meals, etc) that fix John into a Jewish context. And lo and behold, we turn to the Dead Sea Scrolls and we find a 153 parallel. If someone wants to investigate before I get time to edit:

George j. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. pp.282-297 The chapter is "4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21.11" --Ari89 (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

## Mathematical items from previous page version

Too much material on matematics it is not relevant to this article since it is about a miracle in the Gospel accounts, not math. The math is "pure speculation" with no hope of scientific or mathematical proof or falsifiability. History2007 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

## Is this a math article?

Somehow, all this math mystery seems to need to go to another article. The arithmetic used is hardly above trivial, and it distracts from the gospel account. And it is ALL hypothetical, for there is no way of proving what was intended. It will forever remain guesswork, until Jesus appears again and explains it... until then, we should move it elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

On 2nd thought these are two miracles and really need to be separated since one of them is post-crucifixion. Unless there are good reasons not to, I will separate them in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note that this is not Bible. Religious reasons to delete content from Wikipedia should not be presented here. --Drieakko (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The reasons were not religious "at all". The reason is focus. All the discussion about the number is pure, pure, pure speculation for no one can ever prove or disprove any of it. It is just water cooler talk by amateur mathematicians. The math presented is "pure speculation" with no hope of scientific or mathematical proof or falsifiability. The article is about a miracle. Are you saying it is not an article about a Bible account? History2007 (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

## RfC: Merge or keep separate?

Should the topic of the miraculous draught of fish be covered in more than one article? Should there be separate articles on each of the two miraculous draught of fish? Should there be a third article that covers the esoteric interpretation of the number 153? Should the original article be deleted? Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

### Extended summary

Written by Viriditas

User:Clinkophonist created this article as Catch of 153 fish on 29 April 2006.[2] It was prodded by User:The Anome a month later,[3], and survived. At the time, the article was mostly one-sided, avoiding the popular exoteric interpretation and instead focusing on the esoteric, Hermetic, Gnostic, and Pythagorean interpretation of the text. About a year later, the article looked like this, and a year after that, User:Johnbod moved it to its current title.[4] Beginning on October 22, 2009, User:History2007 began deleting content[5][6] and then on 23 October, History2007 created a new article with the same name and topic at Miracle of draught of fishes (now called Miraculous draught of fishes),[7] after which History2007 redirected this article to his new article[8] and created another article, Miraculous catch of 153 fish[9]. Additionally, History2007 moved old information from this article to another article, 153 (number).[10] We now have three articles on the same, related topic, plus a fourth article with some of the old information concerning the implications of the number 153 in relation to the topic:

### Discussion

I think the cleanest way is to have one article for each miracle, one pre-Crucifixion, the other post Crucifixion and have this page just deleted. They are two separate miracles, a couple of years apart from each other and need two separate articles. And as is, they clearly refer to each other. And in terms of Gospel harmony, each miracle has its own clean and separate page, so it works best that way. That is simple enough. No need for a big deal about it. History2007 (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to discuss where to go from here. I think we have several options, but considering the paucity of current material at this stage, I would like to suggest returning to a centralized article on the subject, covering all aspects. If the need arises per WP:SUMMARY, miracles and subtopics can be split out. But right now, I do not see the benefit of having four articles on one subject. For guidance, see feeding the multitude, an article that incorporates two miracles The Feeding of the 5000 and The Feeding of the 4000, also known as the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Notice how that single article has subsections on the two miracles and a separate section for interpretations. I suggest we follow that model, as it benefits the reader to have all of the information in one place. Redirects may be used for the purposes of navigation and categorization, so there is no need for two articles at this time. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Many readers will be vague as to which miracle they want, or unaware there are two, or just looking for the general term. The number material might be kept in its own article, although there must be reference to this, which all seems to have been removed now from here, though not the longer article. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• I do not agree with History2007's resasons for removing the numbers from this article. The abundance of good sources on this subject demonstrates that it is not a trivial subtopic. The article on the vesica piscis touches upon the key points. Based on this evidence, I do not see the need for more than one article. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Hello? That discussion is nonsense math at best and that is being kind to it. In any case, I did not delete it from Wikipedia, but put it with other items that juggle a set of numbers to make arguments that appeal to simple minds. If the number had been 168, then I would have argued great that is the product of the first two perfect numbers, so it must have been a perfect catch. And then we could all SCREAM wow, wow, wow, that is also an abundant number so God wanted to send a message to everyone who could do numbers that the catch was abundant because it was exactly 168 fish. Amazing! If the number had been X, I could provide a similar set of amazing revelations about it. In any case, there can be a reference to those material, but those who look up "Miracles of Jesus" generally want to learn about what the Gospel said, not about nonsense simple math conjectures. They do not need to read through all that. It is already with the other half-baked thoughts of that class on another page. In any case, that argument is based on numerology and it is fair to quote this, which should certainly be added to that discussion in the other page anyway:
Robert Todd Carroll, 2003 The skeptic's dictionary ISBN 0471272426 page 263:
"Numerology should not be brushed off without a through examination of its underlying theory. Unfortunately there isn't any. Even though we have no idea how it works, much less so we have any clear idea of what it means for numerology to "work"....The attractiveness of numerology maybe that numbers give an aura of scientific and mystical authorativeness."
And that is still being kind to it. It can get much worse. In the highly respected book: Eric Temple Bell, 1992, The development of mathematics ISBN 0486272397 page 54, the criticism is much stronger. History2007 (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
History2007, I respect your opinion, but how do you know what people are looking for on Wikipedia? You may claim to have a hotline to God, but do you also claim to speak for his followers? Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually it is Christmas now, so I think all Heaven is on vacation. We will have to ask later. But let me make a wild guess and say that if someone looks up "Miracles of Jesus" he/she is probably not trying to learn about the Diesel engine or the life of Rudolf Diesel or some incorrect mathematical trivia for that matter. Most likely they are trying to learn about the Gospels. Just a wild guess on my part. But let us see what others think. History2007 (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
History2007, could you explain what you mean by "trying to learn about the Gospels"? Is the number 153 part of this Gospel? Have scholars commented on its meaning or not? And what is the relationship between the number 153 and the vesica piscis? Is the vesica piscis a popular Christian symbol? Viriditas (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion is one thing, chat for ever is another. Let us wait 1 or 2 days for other responses. I will respond in 2 days, no sooner. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a connection or relationship between the draught of fish, the number 153, the vesica piscis, and the Ichthys, or are all of these things different? Viriditas (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it is more useful for the reader to have it all in one article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

### On the fourth day of Christmas my computer said to me: Merge

Given that 4 days had passed, I followed John's comment and merged the two articles. I included a reference to the 153 number to the suitable article along with other number discussions, as stated above. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not act unilaterally. Part of the problem here, is that you unilaterally created duplicate articles and removed information from an already existing article. This RFC is meant to resolve the issue with the help of input from outside editors. You are supposed to wait until the end of the RFC before changing anything, or at the very least, discuss your solution with the participating parties. There is much more at stake here than simply merging content. There is also the need to maintain page histories and decide on the correct title, in addition to the discussion about a section on interpretations. I think your changes are fine for now, but I would ask that in the future, you consult with all parties beforehand. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
My computer said merge, and computers never make mistakes..... History2007 (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
GIGO. :-) Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

## Sources supporting inclusion of a section interpreting the meaning of the 153 fish

• Augustine of Hippo observed 153 is the triangular of 17.[1]
• Richard Bauckham published an article on the subject in the journal, Neotestamentica, titled, "The 153 fish and the unity of the fourth Gospel", It was also published in his book Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, The: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (2007).
• D. A. Carson and Craig S. Keener have both published on the subject.
• Saint Jerome's opinion on the meaning of the 153 fish is considered notable and popular, but scholars criticize it for its inaccuracy.
• Christian art is full of examples illustrating this scene (Konrad Witz, etc.)

### Fringe idea already has a reference

The 153 numerology nonsense is clearly a WP:Fringe item and is not included in the "mainstream" books on miracles such as these:

• Clowes, John, 1817, The Miracles of Jesus Christ published by J. Gleave, Manchester, UK
• Lockyer, Herbert, 1988 All the Miracles of the Bible ISBN 0310281016
• Maguire, Robert, 1863 The Miracles of Christ published by Weeks and Co. London
• Trench, Richard Chenevix, Notes on the miracles of our Lord, London : John W. Parker, 1846
• Van der Loos, H., 1965 The Miracles of Jesus, E.J. Brill Press, Netherlands
• Warren W. Wiersbe 1995 Classic Sermons on the Miracles of Jesus ISBN 082543999X

The symbol of the fish was a "post-Ascension" idea and is hence NOT part of the life of Jesus. There is a reference in the article to this simple minded fringe discussion and it is there within Wikipedia, for those who want to read it, but given that it is a fringe item, it can not be in the main article to distract from the miracles as discussed in the mainstream books on the topic. History2007 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

History2007, please read WP:FRINGE and understand what it says. I have already provided a very brief list of notable scholars and authorities who have discussed the interpretation of the number 153 in relation to the draught of fish. It is not fringe in any way, and it is discussed extensively in mainstream literature. I would like to take the opportunity to point out that your list of sources on this subject shows that you may not understand how we determine and use reliable sources. We generally evaluate good sources based on authoritativeness, accuracy, and currency. You will note that my list meets and exceeds this criteria, while yours, unfortunately, does not. Augustine of Hippo, Richard Bauckham, D. A. Carson, Craig S. Keener, and Saint Jerome are just a few out of dozens of reliable sources on the subject. I think you misunderstand what "fringe" means in this case, and how it is used on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree. In any case, the numerology nonsense is in the other page. If you want to add more just add to that page. I see no big deal here, it is still in Wikipedia, but does not get in the way of the mainstream items. Alas, it is low quality math. History2007 (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
History2007, you said that the sources I offered were fringe; Could you support your claim with evidence? Also, could you please explain how an interpretation of the number 153 is fringe when it is discussed in many reliable sources? Obviously, scholars consider it significant and important. Could you please explain your reasoning other than declaring it fringe and saying you disagree? Also, do you understand why the sources you have offered are not a good fit for our article, while the ones that I have given you are considered reliable? Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I already did above. History2007 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you didn't, and the sources you offered are not considered reliable by our standards. Do you understand that the sources I have asked you to review are considered reliable? Can you explain the difference? Reliable, scholarly sources have discussed the interpretation of the number 153 in direct relation to this topic. Your claim that this is somehow "fringe" is not supported. Please support your claim that this is "fringe", sticking closely to the definition that Wikipedia uses. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I already commented above. History2007 (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
No, in fact, you did not comment. This is a discussion page, and a discussion involves communication. I have asked you several questions, and you have not responded. Simply saying "I disagree, it is fringe" is not a valid response. You need to show how and why it is fringe, and as I have already explained, the discussion of the interpretation of the number 153 appears in scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. This means, that according to Wikipedia standards, it is acceptable for inclusion. If you can explain why it is not, then I can address your objection. Otherwise, I will assume that you cannot, and I will add it back into the article. And again, the sources you have offered do not represent a response. You picked several unreliable sources that do not discuss the topic and argued that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is most certainly not, and your argument is not a reasonable line of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, #1, I only see names of scholars, not sources. Are we supposed to read all the works of D. A. Carson to find the page in which he says someing about this number? #2 Most early church fathers, individually, held some ideas we would consider "fringe" -- and Jerome more than most. Carlaude:Talk 11:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I've provided names and sources. You are just changing the subject again. I'm not interested in other fringe ideas, I'm interested in why you think a discussion of the images and symbols pertaining to the number 153 is considered fringe. And, I have repeatedly asked you to back up what you are saying with evidence. I'm still waiting. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The long and short of the story is this Viri:

• Three other people have responded to this discussion, Carl now and myself and John before Carl.
• I merged the two articles out of respect for John's comment for he has a long history of 1st class articles.
• But John said that he thought the "number items" should be on a different page. I also think so. And Carl is not supporting the numerology items here it seems. And note that Carl has previously done work on miracles and gospel pages, so he is not new to the idea at all, and knows the gospels very well.
• Therefore it looks like 3 people versus you alone.

Let the matter be settled herein. History2007 (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what John said. He wrote, "The number material might be kept in its own article, although there must be reference to this, which all seems to have been removed now from here, though not the longer article." There is considerable coverage of the subject. D. A. Carson gives a brief overview in The Gospel According to John (1991) Disappearing for four days only to return and merge the articles is one thing. Thanks for your consideration. Refusing to discuss returning the interpretation section you removed without consensus is another. It's nice that you have only the best interests of this article in mind, but an interpretation section that discusses the number is supported by John. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, you can go ahead and all the numerology fringe nonsense to the other page. No one is stopping you. But you are typing on talk pages, while Carl and myself are fixing the errors in the article.... enough said. History2007 (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
No. Richard Bauckham in Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, The: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (2007), Chapter 13, "The 153 Fish and the Unity of the Fourth Gospel"; R. Alan Culpepper's "Designs for the Church in the Imagery of John 21:1-14", in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (2006); Culpepper cites Corrado Marucci's 2004 article, "Il significato del numero 153 in Gv 21,11 in Rivista Biblica; Craig S. Keener in [The Gospel of John: A Commentary] (2003); Mark Kiley's "Three More Fish Stories (John 21:11)" (2008) in Journal of Biblical Literature 127:3. Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Just because you can (or may be able to) find a great number of books or journals that talk about the idea, does not make it notible. These books are hundreds of pages. This article-- or even all the Wikipedia articles on passages in John put together-- are not as long as a published commentary. There are, will, and should be things covered there we do not cover.
• Most of these works (or at least the better ones) seem to spend most of the text on the topic on covering the many ideas out there-- which would quickly ballon way out of proportion in a Wikipedia article-- unless it stayed POV.
• Many good scholars view it as an just a historical number --with no symbolism, including the well known FF Bruce in his 1983 book on John. There are more, like books by Bernard, Brown, Wiarda[2] whereas I have not heard of any of the other guys (those with a contary view). These others also lack a Wikipedia article.
• Corrado Marucci, 2004, "Il significato del numero 153 in Gv 21,11 in Rivista Biblica claims that most scholars consider the number symbolic, but (to Marucci at least) the symbolic meaning is now lost to us. Both in this case, and the "no symbolic meaning" case above, there is no benifit to discuss it here (in the article), esp. since there is the link to the 153 Wikipedia article.
• I agree with History2007 you should drop it, in both senses. Carlaude:Talk 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You know Carl, what we should not let Viri do is "talk us to death". I think you have made your point 3 times over now. He will come back and say da da da da etc. but he will get nowhere. The idea is Fringe and that is all. Thanks for your input. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
For the second time, History2007, this is a talk page, and what we do here is talk. I'm sorry you dislike this fact, but there's nothing I can do, it's what the page is used for on Wikipedia. Also, I expect you to address the sources I have offered, rather than to ignore and dismiss them. There is nothing preventing me from expanding the interpretation section and discussing the symbolism of the 153 fish, a topic covered by biblical scholars in multiple scholarly sources and reputable books. So far, neither you nor Carlaude have addressed Wikipedia policy or guidelines, instead misusing the word "fringe" and ignoring my questions. As the authors make clear, the topic is notable and significant, taking up entire chapters in several books. For example, please address what R. Alan Culpepper says on the matter.[11] There is no reason not to represent Culpepper's position in this article. Your continual removal of information you dislike isn't how we edit Wikipedia. Our personal beliefs and convictions should not interfere with what good sources say on the subject. And they say that the symbolism of the 153 is important enough to discuss here. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that this is a talk page..... You are so observant and ever so clever.... History2007 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Address what Culpepper says? It even begins "scholars have not been able to reach any consensus" and that was part of my point.
You really don't even discuss, you talk. Carlaude:Talk 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That scholars have not reached a consensus on the matter is all the more reason to represent the colorful diversity of notable interpretations in this article. Why should it be any different? I would like to point you over to the NPOV policy. Neither you not History2007 have presented any reason for deliberately removing coverage of these significant opinions. Our job is to use the best sources to explain it. We are writing a broad, secular encyclopedia article, not a bible study guide that favors one POV. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

### 153? not significant by any mainstream measure

There is nothing in the mainstream which supports this 153 number being portrayed as significant in and of itself - not in this article anyway. Do we have a WP article on numerology aspects of the Bible? 7390r0g (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This article links to "153 (number)#In the Bible. For "numerology of the Bible" in general, there is Bible numerics, which could be improved into what you might have in mind. Carlaude:Talk 19:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh boy... I did not know about the Bible Numerics article. I was laughing for over a minute when I read that.... Anyway, given that it is there, the whole discussion is over. Any discussion of 153 should go there for that is where numbers in the bible are discussed. Of course the type of patterns they discuss can also be found in the New York Times, but that is another story, as I said about 168 fish being perfect and abundant... amazing that people new to math spend time on these things.... anyway that article is where this type of hypothetical thoughts should go. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the claim put forward by 7390r0g. The interpretation and symbolism of the number 153 is indeed mainstream, and Richard Bauckham, R. Alan Culpepper's, Corrado Marucci, Craig S. Keener, and Mark Kiley are a small sample of the mainstream scholars that have written about the subject. So, contrary to what is being claimed by 7390r0g, Carlaude, and History2007, the subject is notable, significant, and relevant to this article. Considering 7390r0g's contribution history and wikihounding from the CRU article to here, I will ignore his uninformed opinion as another attempt at disruption. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikihounding is wrong - I found an RfC here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Religion_and_philosophy specifically requesting feedback from the community on the 153 question and I responded on the talk page as requested. I have never edited against this user on any page ever. I'm sorry that I crossed paths with her and I will make every effort to avoid her in the future. 7390r0g (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe there is another way we can expand this miracle article (tongue in cheek) with a 3rd miracle..... just for fun. Viri buys a gold fish and starts talking to it... talk, talk, talk... Then at some point I conjecture that "the fish will talk back" and say something like "shut up" (although the wording may vary) 153 times in a row... that would be a third miracle of the fish... then maybe it will become expandable. Until then we have several people against Viri here and there is no need for further repetition.... History2007 (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
7390r0g, don't let Viriditas intimidate you. He seems to say (or repeat) whatever he can in hopes of getting his way. Carlaude:Talk 04:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The edits you are referring to were added by someone else. The edits I am referring to are based on peer-reviewed journal articles written by biblical scholars. I can see how you can confuse the two things, as they both refer to the same topic, but the content is entirely different. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, if he expands I will revert him... then he has to wait and talk more. He has no consensus. A then others can revert him until he crosses 3Rev line. History2007 (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what I meant... I meant the 153 item here... and please do feel fee to complain to anyone any time anywhere... up to the united nations... you have no consensus. Period. History2007 (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes-- go ahead and contact an administrator now. Contact all of 'em if you like! Carlaude:Talk 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It will happen soon enough with statements like "if he expands I will revert him", and the ongoing POV pushing. I have no need of you to tell me to do anything; If I require your assistance, you will be notified. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain it this way: You have no consensus. History2007 (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this issue, and consensus does not at any time override Wikipedia policy, for example, NPOV. You have not engaged in any direct discussion about 153. Informed consensus, based on actual discussion involving evidence is legitimate. Instead, what you have done is dismiss evidence out of hand with vague claims of "fringe" without any substantiating references. That's not how consensus works, and NPOV always comes first. You're too close to this topic, and you need to take a step back and sit this one out. Otherwise, address the sources I have offered and explain why they are not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. History2007 (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. That statement, "I do not agree with you" does not address the evidence under discussion. Whether you agree or disagree, statements of objection and support must be accompanied by actual discussion and evidence. Why don't you agree? Because you claim it is fringe. Why is it fringe? I'm still waiting for the answer to that question, and I have repeatedly asked it for the last week without response. Please answer it or forfeit the argument. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer is here. [13] History2007 (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That link points to this discussion. Please explain the answer using your own words. To date, nobody has explained why the biblical symbolism of the number 153 cannot be discussed in this article. According to good scholarly sources, there is significant discussion on the topic and some of it belongs here. If you disagree, explain why. Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation is here. [14] History2007 (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that is a duplicate link that you already provided. Please explain your objection to the 153 in your own words, here, in reply to my request, paying special attention to your claim that it is "fringe". For example, which scholarly source claims that a discussion of the biblical symbolism of 153 is fringe? If you can't find one, then your claim isn't supported. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I already did. I will wait for others to respond now... happy new year... Are you having fish? Anyway, I am haviing a good laugh here... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"I do not agree with you...Answer is here...Explanation is here...I already did" - none of this consists of actual discussion, evidence, or counterarguments. Consensus is based on actual discussion involving actual evidence, not vague declarations of opposition or support. If you can't answer my questions on the talk page, then simply admit it. You have not explained why the 153 symbolism is considered fringe, nor have you provided any sources supporting your viewpoint. Therefore, your objection cannot be taken seriously. I'm glad you find this funny, but the talk page is used to improve the article, not to disrupt it. Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain it this way: You have no consensus on your view of Wikipedia policy, and your view of Wikipedia policy does not override other people's view of Wikipedia policy. Your view of Wikipedia policy also does substitute for consensus and we are not going to rehash all your ideas again for many reasons-- reasons such as your ideas' clear flaws, the consensus against you, and your total inability to the address issues we bring up. Carlaude:Talk 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus "against me" because you have not addressed any of the issues that I have raised. You have dismissed, out of hand, any discussion of symbolism and imagery related to the number 153, a significant topic found in the peer-reviewed, biblical literature. You claim that it is "fringe", yet you cannot explain why or support your claim with an actual scholar who says it is fringe. What we are left with is a campaign of POV pushing by you and History2007, which is not supported by policy. In other words, you have not been able to argue against the inclusion of the 153 material. I have shown that scholarly sources found it significant. You have not, on the other hand, provided the same sources which dismiss it. Please do so. Furthermore, the current state of this article shows beyond a doubt that you do not understand how we write encyclopedia articles. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
@Viri. I think what they are saying is there's no consensus that your requested additions are apropos to this particular article. I am not arguing that there is/is not truth or peer review supporting your suggestions. And I am not saying you are wrong about the meaning. What I feel is that the mainstream view of the Bible does not include studies of such esoteric aspects. It borders on fringe - so far as it's public acceptance level. I urge you consider adding this material to a more appropriate article. 7390r0g (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Those sources represent mainstream views of the bible. An encyclopedia article can include good interpretations, commentary and analysis from experts in their respective fields. I am not arguing for inclusion of the material from the 153 (number)#In the Bible article. I am talking about rewriting the article with the sources I have offered above and others. If you find something wrong with the ones I've raised, please tell me the problem. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I am uncertain how you arrive at "mainstrem views of the Bible". There are two camps when it comes to the Bible: 1) Those who start with the premise that it's "inspired" (ie: written by the Holy Spirit, via the vehicle of human scribes) and 2) those who do not. Now which of these two "mainstreams" would you say your sources fall under? 7390r0g (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You are uncertain about the sources because you have not looked at them. As for the false dilemma you present above, there are not only two camps "when it comes to the Bible", there may be those who think it is both or posit other choices. I fail to see what either of these things has to do with writing an encyclopedia article on the subject. However, if you feel it is important, perhaps you could look at the sources yourself (without dismissing them out of hand) and tell me which camp you think they fall under and why this is important? Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

### Spinning out of control: Alert posted

• If its a content dispute then watchers of this page should be notified. Wikiquette dispute can be posted here also. As it says at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Beginning, "continue discussing it at its original location"]] Please try to not be quite so much of a control freak. Carlaude:Talk 12:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Carl, but is there a talk you to death alert to post on his page too? History2007 (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I get the fact that you and Carl "agree" and "disagree" with each other, but you need to add reasons and evidence to these things in order for the discussion to make sense. If this isn't clear or easy to understand, feel free to ask questions, but there is no consensus on Wikipedia that is based on agreeing or disagreeing. It requires actual discussion. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it is this way: we agree with each other, disagree with you. History2007 (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• FWIW, I am happy with the basic form of the article as it is now [15] - both miracles covered, and the 153 issue in a separate article with a linked mention. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Now we have four people on one side vs Viri on the other side. My prediction: he may yet say that none of the 4 people have elucidated their arguments well enough, etc. etc. etc. and type another dissertation on how encyclopedia articles "should be" written. Let the games continue.... History2007 (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The only problem is that these "sides" aren't real. I don't support the material being taken from the 153 article and placed in this article, and I've never made that argument. I support rewriting this article and expanding it with new information from new sources. The current article is a stub, and does not represent broad encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Stub flag was before the merge. Now it is start. If John says it is Ok, that means a lot, if you look at the class of work he has done before. History2007 (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The assessment aside, the article is still stubby. I appreciate John's opinion and I thank him for it. But, I am still here, and I think for myself. Unlike John, I am not "happy" with the basic form of this article, and I can find no precedent for it. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I support keeping article as it is, per John, and could also support expanding, but not rewriting it. I don't think it will ever be a canidate for FA, but more information on interpretion, aside from 153, could be added if someone wants. Interpretion of the 153 might be added to linked articles. Carlaude:Talk 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Carl. But do not see a huge rush to expand anyway, but 153 is certainlynot suited here.... Now let us get ready for another lecture on how it "should be done".... History2007 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but such a proposal is not only unprecedented and unheard of, it is simply unacceptable at every level. We do not "freeze" articles as stubs to prevent their development, nor do we vote against "rewriting" a poorly written, poorly sourced stub. This kind of proposal cannot be taken seriously, and will not be followed. If you cannot address the problems with this article or why you objection to standard scholarly interpretation and discussion of symbols and imagery, then you should probably focus on one of the 31,438 other project articles that need work. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

## Rewrite

I have tagged this article with the {{rewrite}} tag because the amount of cleanup required to meet style and content guidelines and policies would necessitate the use of more than one cleanup tag. First, this article needs to use good, scholarly sources on the subject, which it currently lacks. Second, the current article consists mostly of two plot summaries rather than a discussion and commentary on the subject. Third, significant discussion of the imagery and symbolism is discussed in the biblical literature and should be represented. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, that was good now. Let us have a vote if there is need for a total rewrite. Please vote below:

• Oppose total rewrite. History2007 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This was not a call for a vote, nor can consensus override the application of policies and guidelines. Please specifically address the points I have raised, paying attention to the problems under discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If you don't to call a vote, I will. Why don't you want to vote? Let me guess now.... History2007 (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, this is not the place to vote on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Such things are not open for consensus on article talk pages. My request for rewrite is based on the problems I have raised; Please address them. We do not vote "oppose" or "support" when it comes to improving articles. We address the problems, and fix them. For example, an editor has added a reference to author John Clowes and his 1817 work , The Miracles of Jesus Christ. Could you explain why this author, this work, and this old interpretation is important to this article? From what I can tell, the Rev. John Clowes appears to be part of the Swedenborgianism movement, and the source is not current for our use. Reliable sources on Wikipedia, tend to be authoritative, accurate, and current. Of course, if Clowes has an opinion on the subject, we should consider attributing the opinion to him. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Another editor has added Presbyterian minister Rev. Herbert Lockyer, Jr.'s All the Miracles of the Bible (1988). This is part of a bible study series published by Zondervan. I looked at parts of Lockyer's book on Amazon, and I'm not sure if it is a good fit for our purposes. Of course, if he has an opinion on the matter, I would argue for its inclusion with attribution, but I would like to see a more scholarly approach. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• No one made proposal here... except you Viriditas. You may not mean you want a "total rewrite," and "rewrite" is vague-- so I think it better if we drop arguing about the term "rewrite" (and I agree we should not try to freeze the article per se). In fact we are not really discussing content in a useful way anymore.
• Let us use the WP:BRD model-- which would means waiting for Viriditas to make some actual edits to the article and then discuss any that need reversion or discussion.
• Viriditas, if you object to making these edits and risk reversion-- and I hope you don't-- you can still be a lot more clear and concrete about what you want to change, as part of the discussion, before we continue futher.
• Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Carlaude:Talk 07:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

## refs and fringe

I added a few more references. I thought perhaps Viri would like to type a few thousand lines on each reference, discussing its suitability.... Keep typing Viri.... you are setting records buddy, you are setting records here.... I mean that: you are setting records.... By the way, none of the references mention the numerology angle, showing that it is fringe. Anyway, if you like, I can add ten more references, so you can type a few thousand lines about each... I will be glad to help... All you need to do is ask buddy... you are setting records here... Cheers History2007 (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making fallacious appeals to negative proof. We have affirmative evidence in good scholarly sources published current academic sources and peer-review journals, such as Richard Bauckham in Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, The: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (2007), Chapter 13, "The 153 Fish and the Unity of the Fourth Gospel"; D. A. Carson in The Gospel According to John (1991); R. Alan Culpepper's "Designs for the Church in the Imagery of John 21:1-14", in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (2006); Culpepper cites Corrado Marucci's 2004 article, "Il significato del numero 153 in Gv 21,11 in Rivista Biblica; Craig S. Keener in [The Gospel of John: A Commentary] (2003); Mark Kiley's "Three More Fish Stories (John 21:11)" (2008) in Journal of Biblical Literature 127:3. Augustine of Hippo and Saint Jerome also discuss the topic in their writings, and this is covered in secondary sources. That's just a small sample of reliable sources on the topic. You recently added references to Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Daniel J. Harrington, Timothy Johnson, and Kevin Quast and claimed that because they did not discuss the topic it must be fringe. That's not true, and it isn't how we make good arguments. The fact is, there is nothing "fringe" about the topic. The number has been discussed extensively in the literature and deserves to be represented in this article. This current article is not encyclopedic; It has become a plot summary and quote farm from the bible, rather than an article about the bible passage. That isn't appropriate. This article needs to represent significant views on the subject including interpretation, opinion, and commentary from experts. A good example of a beginning encyclopedic treatment of the subject can be found in the Oxford Bible Commentary (2001) by John Barton and John Muddiman.[16] William Barclay also covers it in The Gospel of John (1975), Volume 2. The number of biblical scholars who discuss this topic is extraordinary. This puts to rest the false claim from you and Carl that this topic is fringe. Reputable biblical scholars and authors have covered this topic throughout the literature. We have more than enough reliable sources to discuss it here. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow fallacious appeals to negative proof... I am still trying to figure out what that means.... and I used to be a logician.... go figure.... In the meantime, the Oxford ref said that Gematria was no good since it leads to arbitrary hypotheses. I agree with that ... So I would say is frindge.... since it may mean that Mary Magdalene wrote the Gospel of John.... a very fringe idea.....I will add more refs, then maybe you can write 10,000 more lines.... you are setting records buddy... records.... now also in logic... yCheers. History2007 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm glad you are starting to address the evidence for the first time. I appreciate that and hope we can continue along this path. Thanks for looking at the Oxford reference and for bringing it up for discussion. Since many of the refs say basically the same thing as the Oxford source, I'm curious why you think we can't use it. I understand that you think it is fringe, but considering the fact that it is covered by many reliable sources, there is no problem with using it. I understand that you are concerned about the implications it raises, but that's why I have asked you to find good sources on your end that address this problem so we can talk about why biblical scholars disagree with these interpretations and why they agree with others. In other words, our job is not to ignore the various interpretations, but to best represent the opinions on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

## Motion to close debate for 180 days

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines explains how the talk page is used. Wikipedia:Editing policy provides information on what to do when you have problems on the talk page. Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What is consensus? explain how consensus is used for decision-making on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• support - This subject has been talked to death - time to move the question. 7390r0g (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• support - But is there any process for an "official imprimature on this motion"? Carlaude:Talk 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• support - also for 180,000 days.... Amen. History2007 (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed as absurd. Discussion pages are expressly used to discuss improving the article. You cannot use consensus to stop discussion or prevent the expansion of articles.

• Please read and understand how Wikipedia:Consensus works. I have not even begun to propose my changes for this article, nor has anyone even remotely addressed the scholarly sources I've added to this talk page. What this means is that the subject has not even been touched, let alone discussed. You cannot use consensus to prevent discussion or expansion on any article. Further attempts to promote this kind of disruption will result in the filing of an administrative report. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• So where is the Wikipedia policy on closing a discussion as absurd?
• Please know that while discussion pages are used to discuss improving the article-- articles can be improved by consensus to stop beating a dead horse.
• I am sure others reading, like I, this look forward to your efforts to file an administrative report. Carlaude:Talk 11:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If this disruptive, improper use of consensus continues, I will most certainly be filing a report. We do not vote to close discussion on talk pages, nor do we vote to stop people from expanding articles. You may be interested in learning more about Wikipedia by reading Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Editing policy, and Wikipedia:What is consensus?. You are welcome at any time to remove this article from your watchlist and stop participating, which is what it appears you, History2007, and 7390r0g are choosing to do. In other words, if you do not want to discuss a certain topic or how to improve this article, don't. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask them in the appropriate venue. This page, however, is used to discuss how to improve the topic. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

## Viriditas misstates scope of consensus power

In the above section, whereby V mocked my very reasonable motion, V stated "You cannot use consensus to... prevent the expansion of articles." which of course is 100% wrong as consensus is exactly the mechanism used to control article content. This problem clearly will not be resolved without someone in authority explaining the rules to V. That said, I didn't come to this article for a fight, so this will be my last edit here at this time. 7390r0g (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your motion is not reasonable; It is blatant, unabashed trolling. You followed me here from the climate change articles to hound me, and your account has a long history of disruptive editing. I asked you to stop what you were doing on your talk page, and you said you would, but you haven't-you've merely escalated the disruption. For those who don't recognize your trolling for what it is, we do not use "consensus" to prevent discussions on talk pages, nor do we use "consensus" to prohibit article expansion. There isn't a single fact or accurate assessment of this discussion in your "proposal", and it's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Now, please, go away. Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Your accusation is 100% totally false and is a personal attack. I came here as a result of your RfC - you personally asked if WP should include "esoteric" information relating to the number 153 in this article and I gave my honest answer, which is "no". That said, your suggestion that I "go away" is a needless taunt as I already have stated as much. My final position is clear: I do not support your suggestion and frankly, do not like how you speak to me. I will not knowingly respond to any post by you at any time in the future on any article. 7390r0g (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
But you will continue to hound me wherever I go? Isn't it time you stop? You are, of course, welcome at any time to actually address a single thing I have said in regards to this topic on this page, but I suspect it will be a cold day in hell before that happens. There's many different scholarly sources that I've offered above for discussion. Why don't you show your good faith and address one of them? You won't, because you aren't here to improve the article. I don't need anyone to explain the rules to me, 7390r0g. I need you to follow them. To reiterate what I've said above, your entire proposal is ridiculous. First, it does not accurately represent anything I've written; Second, it does not use consensus to help improve this article, but instead, proposes closing down the talk page and prohibiting article expansion. That's not what we use consensus for here, 7390r0g, and I think you know that. Nobody is forcing you to engage in discussion, and you don't need consensus to walk away. If you aren't here to discuss the topic or expand and improve the article, then why are you here? You're here because you followed me over from the Obama and climate change articles to cause more trouble. Viriditas (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

## Title

Could someone explain why this article is called "miraculous catch of fish" and who first referred to it as such? It is my understanding that the incident was not referred to as a miracle in the original Greek, and in fact the word "miracle" does not appear in the original text at all. If this is an issue of translation, it should be made clear who first used this term and when. Encyclopedia articles generally go into the etymology of a word or term, and discuss the history of usage. It would also be helpful to reflect on alternate descriptions of this event, perhaps from a neutral perspective, although I have no problem with the current title. Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

## Relationship to 153 (number) article

I note that all the various "miraculous catch of fish" articles have been merged, which seems sensible. There is also a 153 (number) article, which has its own existence under Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. It's a notable number, and properly sourced information about the number naturally goes there (there is a lot of improperly sourced and false information in circulation on the number).

The 153 (number) article has an "In the Bible" section which naturally belongs there, because (1) the Biblical use is notable (witness its mention in The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers), and (2) symbolism based on the number's mathematical properties is appropriately discussed in the article which mentions those properties.

It may make sense for this article to replicate or summarise some of that information. Whether or not that is done, the link to that article should be retained, in my opinion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and there is already a link to that article, where the number info is found. History2007 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

## Scripture quotations

I notice the descriptions of the miracles have several unreferenced scripture quotations, which may be copyright violations, depending which version was used. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've handled this by rewording most quotes, and referencing the others. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you did really well with your clean up. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

## The Problem of treating the NT accounts of the miraculous draught of fishes as two separate incidents

This article is based on the premise that the New Testament tells of two separate incidents involving a mysterious draught of fishes.The writer might have defended this view against a contrary opinion even if he or she held this to be erroneous. The problem here lies in the fact that Luke and John seem to mutually exclude the possibility of a miraculous draft of fishes other than the one they relate in their respective account of such an incident. According to Luke the Disciples were commanded not to leave Jerusalem until the final appearance of Jesus before leaving the world (in The Acts, on Ascension Day). Luke for his part links the incident with Peter's calling to become a disciple. In St John's Gospel Andrew and Peter became committed to Jesus when they were disciples of John the Baptist located on the banks of the river Jordan. Let us admit that they received a second calling when tending their nets beside the Sea of Galilee as Matthew, Mark and Luke himself attest. Only Luke among the writers of the Synoptic Gospels gives any account of a miraculous draught of fishes, and this in his gospel occurred on the day after the calling of the disciples by the Sea of Galilee, for Peter the third call in toto.The writer of the article obviated any discussion of this problem simply by omitting any reference to another viewpoint. 94.221.99.106 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we played that ping-pong game for long. There used to be two articles, then discussion, then a merge, then discussion, then ping, then pong. Now, are you saying ping... ? History2007 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
If, as I presume, there is respectable scholarly backup for this view, it ought to be covered, but let's stick to one article. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, fortunately the referee declared an end to the ping pong game. Great. I did not feel like playing again. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)