John 21:11. 153 fish. Father George Rutler comments on the meaning of 153 fish

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnR77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Easily the most annoying thread I have read here.

What does Archimedes or π have to do with anything?

Or the 1356ad Slavonic text? It looks like they use greek numerals, but maybe I am reading it wrong? Nice illustration…

ΡΗΓ
 
Dovekin said:
Easily the most annoying thread I have read here.

What does Archimedes or π have to do with anything?

Or the 1356ad Slavonic text? It looks like they use greek numerals, but maybe I am reading it wrong? Nice illustration…

ΡΗΓ
Click to expand...
When I prayed the Mass, Solemnity of Annunciation, (Incarnation)
my favorite day of the year,
i offered it up all those I annoy.
I figured that must be a really large group of people.
Even though I do not intend to do so.

I will have to explain a lot more for most people to see the 153, the Archimedes connection. As for this connection it does not matter if we are looking at Greek or English translation.

I just thought some other translations would be good to look at.

Being short of time, i thought it would be easier to show for now that the catching of fish symbolized obtaining wisdom.

Rarely do I find ΡΗΓ as 153.
I believe it is a corruption of
Ρ Ν Γ = 153
Ρ ρ rho 100
Ν ν nu 50
Γ γ gamma 3

The problem is their letter, derived from
Greek Ν ν nu ,
really looks more like an H to us.

If the crossbar angles up,
such as и ,
then it corresponds to
Greek Η η eta which has value of 8.
Or possibly i Iota which is related to eta in some languages.

If the crossbar angles down, even the slightest,
then it is derived from Greek Ν ν nu

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Actually in the Bibles I find the use of letter numerals as above is rare.
Much more often they spell out
hundred fifty three

such as :
ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα τριῶν·

Peace,
John
 
Last edited:
You are right, I should have said ΡΝΓ.

I get confused when I try to read Old Church Slavonic while keeping the Greek and Russian alphabets out of it.

Anyway, ΡΝΓ is what people who heard John’s gospel would have thought, even when it is spelled out in the text. I have no idea if that means anything as letters in place of numbers, or adds anything to the discussion.
 
While I have heard many of these theories about the 153 fish, I believe that there may be a more direct theory based upon the fact that it was only John who made the connection between 153 and Jesus. While Zebedee was a fisherman, we know from the bible that John (and by extension, James) was related to Annas, the High Priest, whether through Zebeddee or their mother. As such, it makes sense that they would have had a more intense education on Jewish priestly practices, theology, and culture due to their genealogical qualifications to one day become priests of the Temple.

In priestly Jewish culture, it was important to avoid writing certain numbers so as to not write the name of God. Jews of that period used Hebrew letters as stand-ins for numbers similar to the Latin usage which we know as Roman Numerals. As such, numbers became words in writing. The numbers most frequently avoided were 15 and 16, which translated as “Yahweh”. The other primary number they sought to avoid was 153 which translated as “ani Elohim”. Literally, this meant “I am the Priest”. Elohim, however, had a different meaning to the priestly class and was one of the most frequent stand ins for the names of God when the priests read scriptures out loud. In essence, 153 means “I am God” to one who had been brought up in Jewish priestly culture.

Thus it was John, the one with priestly training, who recognized the number for a sign of divine self-revelation.

The one who directed them to cast the nets into seemingly barren waters was the one telling them that they were God. It was Jesus.
 
Last edited:
While this does link into John’s closeness with Annas, I am speaking of Acts 4:5-6.
On the next day, their leaders, elders, and scribes were assembled in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly class.
Click to expand...
The inclusion of John within the group of Caiaphas and Alexander denotes relation with Annas. Caiaphas was, of course, his son-in-law and Alexander was one of his sons. This is supported by the ‘other disciple’ being known to Caiphas and influences of high-priestly education within John’s gospel and letters.

This also supports the traditions of why St. James the Greater was the go-between who negotiated the temporary truce with the Temple in the early days of the Church and why he was the first bishop of Jerusalem until his death circa 44AD. He was the eldest of the two and already of the age where he could enact his duties as a priest of the Temple, should he desire to. The people of Jerusalem would more readily recognize him as a source of spiritual authority over the other Apostles due to Jerusalem being ruled almost as a city-state by the Temple authority and the Sanhedrin .
 
Last edited:
Two different Johns, surely!

5 On the morrow their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem, 6 with Annas the high priest and Ca′iaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they inquired, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed, 10 be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered; and they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

Acts 4:5-13 (NRSVCE)
 
If it were two different Johns, Luke would have made differentiation in the names of the two Johns. In the rest of his writings, whenever there were multiple people with the same name, Luke makes differentiation between the two names so that they wouldn’t get confused. The fact that no such differentiation is made lends belief that the two were meant to be linked.

According to the procedure of the Sanhedrin, it had to be convened with all the eligible members before charges were brought. John would have had to be brought in, as a member of the high-priestly class to convene the session before he and Peter were brought to the center of the court to face interrogation. In Luke, the concept of perception is often tied with misunderstanding. Thus them perceiving Peter and John to be uneducated was an incorrect judgement.

This is the explanation I received from Fr. Pablo Gadenz, an internationally published Luke scholar, in my Synoptics Gospels class in seminary. I trust his scholarship.
 
CRM_Brother said:
This is the explanation I received from Fr. Pablo Gadenz, an internationally published Luke scholar, in my Synoptics Gospels class in seminary. I trust his scholarship.
Click to expand...
He certainly is! He’s the author of the volume on Luke in the CCSS series.Thank you for that information, which is wholly new to me.

 
Paul_Edwards said:
There are 153 Hail Marys in a complete Rosary and this was forseen
Click to expand...
In development of what I said months ago, St Peter caught 153 fish because there would come a time when the Rosary (which has 153 Hail Marys) would be our only source of consolation (and the Scapular). It is through the Rosary that the evil one (the man of sin) will be defeated, especially at times like this in which there is no mass for the laity. As St Dominic said “One day, through the rosary and the scapular Our Lady will save the world”.

The Scapular is prefigured earlier on in verse 7 “Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him, (for he was naked,) and cast himself into the sea”. Normally a person would never put a coat on to jump into water, but in this case he did because it prefigured the scapular.

The Rosary is also prefigured in 1 Samuel 17:40 “and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them into the shepherd’s scrip, which he had with him, and he took a sling in his hand, and went forth against the Philistine.” He chose five pebbles even though he only needed to use one, because there are five decades in a Rosary and the Scapular is prefigured by the sling in his hand.

David represents Jesus, Goliath represents the AntiChrist, just as David uses the stones and sling to defeat Goliath, Jesus will use the Rosary and the Scapular to defeat the evil one , and through the prayers of the Successor of St Peter (who caught 153 fish which as I just said represents the Rosary). There is never any physical contact between Jesus and Satan. He will crush the serpent through His Mother as many statues have rightly depicted along with traditional bibles in how they render Genesis 3:15.
 
CRM_Brother said:
The numbers most frequently avoided were 15 and 16, which translated as “Yahweh”. The other primary number they sought to avoid was 153 which translated as “ani Elohim”. Literally, this meant “I am the Priest”.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, I have been looking at the verse, chapter, and page numbers in a Tenakh. The numbers 15 and 16 are indeed invariably printed as, respectively, טו and טז, so as to avoid writing יה (which could be read as Yah) and יו (which could be read as Yo, a variant form of the divine name.) Page 153, however, is numbered in the straightforward fashion as קנג , the publishers having evidently seen no reason to avoid that combination. What word, or combination of words, could that be?
 
Last edited:
Yes, the straight forward number is written as
קנג. The equivocation came about over time. If you add together the valuation of ani Elohim you get 61 and 92. 153 became the shorthand within the Temple for notes on which words to use in place of pronouncing the name of God. קנג
would be written in margins of scrolls to direct pronunciation of Elohim instead of Yahweh. In the time leading up to the time of Christ, the phrase ani Elohim became revered by the priestly class as it was considered a statement of identity similar to ‘I Am Who Am’.

The shorthand fell out of popularity after the destruction of the Temple since it was primarily used by the priestly class. By the time of the Babylonian Talmud, the number had lost the respect it had entertained during the Second Temple period.
 
Last edited:
I eschew anything which even remotely suggests anything connected with the occultic Numerology … And I don’t care who’s presenting it.

The understanding of that large Catch can only be gleaned via the entire context of that Post Resurrection event - which ends with Jesus Renaming Simon as Kefa/Cephas/Rock/Peter - and giving the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to him

Jesus and the Miraculous Catch of Fish​

4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

5 He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?”

“No,” they answered.

6 He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8 The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.

When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.

10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.

Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.

Jesus Instates Peter​

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.
 
Last edited:
Well, tomorrow is the Big Day.
It is the only day of the year that John 21:1-14 is read at Mass.

I improved the graphic image I had sent above.
EndTimes said:
The understanding of that large Catch can only be gleaned via the entire context of that Post Resurrection event - which ends with Jesus Renaming Simon as Kefa/Cephas/Rock/Peter - and giving the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to him
Click to expand...
I agree with the point you are making, but there is another truth to which John is pointing.

The number 153 has a reason. The Church Fathers said so.

I admit I am only sending a weak argument at this point, but I will send more later.

See graphic at


John
 
JohnR77 said:
The number 153 has a reason. The Church Fathers said so.
Click to expand...
Since I’ve never heard of it - and see this as a large distraction - I do not accept it…

What did they say?

Realize - that Fathers and Doctors of the Church were not infallible.
And do not possess the same Authority as is with The Church Itself.
What the Church has included from them within Magisterium is a-ok

So? Is that a specific part of the Church’s Magisterium? A must-be-believed?

_
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
Since I’ve never heard of it - and see this as a large distraction - I do not accept it…
Click to expand...
But in humility could you except that it is possible I could be correct ?

The Catholic Church has Infallibly defined only a handful of scripture passages. Mostly at Trent in regards to the sacraments.

The ideas I present here fall into the category of what is permitted to believe but not required.

Saint Augustine said that it must have a meaning. Would you like for me to Give you a quotation From him ?
Or can you just be content to take my word for it ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top