2015 04 21 shine your light this season

Finding out Jesus might have been real after all

The discovery (or rather the re-discovery) of the Talpiot tombs by James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici is the most monumental archeological finding in 2,000 years of Christianity.

Why is finding the alleged bones of Jesus of Nazareth so important? Because it refutes the theology of a physical resurrection? Yes, it does refute it, but I don’t think the New Testament speaks clearly as to whether Jesus had a physical resurrection or some other type of resurrection, so there is nothing to refute, except a mix of traditions that have no basis in anything except a selective reading of scripture.

In my own case, if I happen to resurrect, I sure hope it will not be with a recycling of these old bones. The Almighty could save Itself a great deal of trouble trying to rectify my decrepit body, by just starting over from scratch and giving me a brand new body. I would be willing to suggest some specifications.

But a physical body does not exist absent a biosphere or other life-support system. So don’t give me a new body unless it has a biosphere to go with it, please. However, a brand new body gloriously free from the laws of physics, one that could subsist on starlight and the sparkling morning dew, might be quite a nice experience and very welcome.

The Talpiot tomb is important to me because it tells me that the historical Jesus really did exist, as least beyond a reasonable doubt. The ossuaries in the tomb had a cluster of names that is unique and telling in terms of probability. I thought the idea that the Talpiot tomb belonged to the Jesus family was very compelling even without the “James-brother-of-Jesus” ossuary. Now the James ossuary is even more conclusively linked to the tomb by this most recent chemical analysis of soil clinging to it by geologist Aryeh Shimron.

Of course the historical Jesus is not entirely the same as the mystical Jesus who was promoted by Paul the Apostle in his zeal to spread monotheism to those looking for a compromise between monotheistic Judaism with its many hundreds of inconvenient rules, and the bloody Pagan tradition of the Lady and her sacrificed Lord. Pauline Christianity was the hybrid they bought into.

The New Testament is not very convincing as to the historical actuality of Jesus of Nazareth, so the Talpiot tomb is critical to our understanding. Nice to know Jesus of Nazareth was a real person – in all probability.

As far as I know, the Vatican has had nothing to say about Talpiot (give them time and they may come up with a response after a few centuries). Certainly they should be grateful that there is now a strong indication that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed historically. Or maybe that would be quite an assumption on my part that the cult of the Curia and its princely cardinals in white lace and flowing red silk have anything to do with Jesus.

There is nothing to support the assertions about Jesus in the New Testament other than the historical fact that some people were martyred defending their personal beliefs about Christianity, but what evidence if any did the martyrs have, and could they have misunderstood or even been delusional??

Now with the findings from Talpiot, for the first time there is strong scientific evidence showing the probability that Jesus actually existed. That’s why the tomb is significant!








Posted in Mysteries, Pronouncements | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


2015 02 08 Seven equal circles each one-third the enclosing circle gif


Just simple arithmetic: add, multiply, and divide

You can use the Sower’s Parables numbers (30 60 100 and 100 60 30) to reveal a hidden factor of “seventy times seven” embedded in the sacred text.


The method common to various sacred texts is this:

(1) Divide a discrete number set into three equal parts, and sum the values in each part;

(2) Multiply the first sum by 100, the second sum by 60, the third sum by 30;

(3) Sum the multiplication products;

(4) Divide by 70 (does it divide evenly?), if yes, repeat with the reverse 30-60-100. Divide both sums of products by 70 and by 7. Does either sum divide evenly? If yes, you have reached your goal of a biblical “70 x 7.”

If that doesn’t work, improvise.  If the biblical authors intended to make puzzles, then each solution might be expected to vary slightly from another, otherwise it would be too easy.

For example: Test if the values should be worked in the order given in the text or in ascending order. Put the values into rows and columns and test if you should add rows or columns. Test if you should sum the sums of products. Test if you should use the numerical value of Greek letters (use the first letter only or the whole word?) Is there a puzzle within the puzzle? Does the puzzle span one book or two or is it just a small list?

I did come across a puzzle in the Syriac version of Aseneth in which the number set did not divide into three equal parts, but was rather composed of values within three dates. Some puzzles are as small as three single values.

What can we learn from doing such mathematical manipulations? For one thing, we can get an idea as to which of competing manuscripts is the least corrupted. The one with an intact Sower’s sevens puzzle is likely the original or the least corrupted.

When the number sets of puzzles span all four books of the Gospel, and against all odds, produce a biblical “70 x 7,” then I have to conclude that the four books were under the control of one party, a single author or editor, at some time in the Gospel’s early development. An example of a number set spanning all four books is in the six combined stories of the Loaves and Fishes.

Alternatively, I could conclude that God came down from heaven and dictated the numbers in the loaves and fishes stories to each of four men writing books of the Gospel independently and now, nearly two thousand years later, I have assembled these “independent” values and they fit together miraculously.

I could conclude that any result of a factor of 70 x 7 is just a fluke against all odds, a fluke that happens over and over and over again (14 times and counting). So far I have published 14 examples of hidden 70 x 7’s that are revealed by Sower’s Parables numbers. See side bar for “Sower’s Sevens,” “Sevens,” and “100-60-30,” for these 14 examples.

Where to find 70 x 7 and 30-60-100 in the Bible:

Seven is a favored number in the Bible. The biblical “70 x 7” is found printed in Matthew 18:22 (footnote NRSV) and also in Genesis 4:24.  By the way, I believe that means seventy times sevenfold (DRA), not 77 times.

The Sower’s Parables numbers can be found at: (1) Matthew 13:8 (100, 60, 30); (2) Matthew 13:23 (100, 60, 30); (3) Mark 4:8 (30, 60, 100); (4) Mark 4:20 (30, 60, 100); and (5) Luke 8:8 (100).

Update June 12, 2016


Here is a Sower’s Sevens number puzzle found in Acts 28:4-30:

This is a number set of 9 numbers.  Arrange the numbers into 3 subsets of 3 numbers each, in the order in which they appear in the text.  Sum the numbers in each subset.

1, 3, 3

Sum = 7

3, 1, 7

Sum = 11

3, 1, 2

Sum = 6

Sum of sums = 24 (that is, 2 x 12, with 12 being a special number in the Bible).

Multiply by the Sower’s parable numbers 30 – 60 – 100

30 x 7 = 210

60 x 11 = 660

100 x 6 = 600

Sum of products = 1,470, factors of 3 x 70 x 7

Thus a biblical “70 x 7” is achieved.

Did you notice that the sum of products is 1,470, that is, 14 (2 x 7) hundred and 70, both 7 and 70 being special numbers in the Bible.

What evident care the biblical author took to achieve this special effect!


February 9, 2015


Posted in Number puzzles, Puzzles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


The presence of Sower’s sevens argues for a common sponsor for all the ancient texts that have such common number patterns.


Now that a year has sped by since I discovered the Sower’s sevens, can I still call it a new discovery? I don’t see why not. Until it catches on, it is still news to most people.


0060 copy left to right, top to bottom, right to left, bottom to top


The Sower’s sevens indicate that:


(1) The Bible is even less literal than you might think,


(2) the apostles names and appellations are a numerical construction and the apostles were not necessarily twelve, and


(3) the four books of the Gospel were originated or were edited by one party at some point in history, as certain number patterns occur across books and show up when the books are COMBINED (for loaves and fishes, apostles names and appellations, and genealogies of Jesus).


And lastly and most importantly, the presence of Sower’s sevens argues for a common sponsor for all the ancient texts that have such common number patterns.


There are hidden numerical patterns in the Hebrew Bible, in the New Testament, and in Of Aseneth (The Lost Gospel) which are all similar, that is, factors of 70 x 7 are revealed by application of Sower’s Parables numbers (100-60-30) to number sets in the texts. If we focus on the differences among these texts, we won’t readily recognize that all are similar in that their purpose was, at least in part, to rewrite Pagan myths or serve as a rallying point against them, and for monotheism. If the purpose of the texts and their numerical patterns are all similar, then where does that lead, but to an organization, a single organization, that sponsored them all. If not a group within the Jewish Sanhedrin, then some Jewish group not far from that. That is what the number patterns indicate.


Another possibility is that the math was perceived to be so “special,” among the ancients, that people from diverse backgrounds adopted it and incorporated it into their sacred scriptures. I write that a bit sarcastically, because how can the math be so “special” when all I get from my readers is a gigantic collective yawn? Granted I probably don’t know all there is to know about the Sower’s sevens, and so I don’t know why the ancients would consider them special. Possibly there is some relation to Pascal’s Triangle as I have explained here.


Unless the Sower’s sevens are unforgettable as well as special, the presence of the Sower’s sevens argues for a much shorter time frame for the development (or editing) of the ancient texts with such number patterns. Instead of a thousand years or more, maybe we are talking a few generations at most. After all, for how long can you sustain interest in Sower’s sevens and keep on putting them in documents? Not for long I bet. Especially considering, there has been so little attention to it here at my blog in the past year.


He who has ears, let him hear.” Everybody else just keep on waiting for the sound bite.


The schools and the standards of learning have turned people into math-haters, people who flee from any kind of math, even something that might be fascinating to them.


To those who are so unappreciative as to say that numerology is “unscientific,” all I can say is that with the Sower’s sevens, I am not doing numerology; but rather, I am investigating specific number patterns in discrete number sets, using very conservative assumptions, and calculating the mathematical odds of gaining certain results. Anyone can look at the numbers and do the same thing, so the results are reproducible, and as scientific as anything can be with texts that are so ancient. The dictionary says numerology is study of the occult significance of numbers. What I am doing is studying an ancient mathematical system, not occult hocus pocus like reading tea leaves or predicting the future with a crystal ball.


The numbers tell us that the Bible is, at least in many passages, a numerical construction, and maybe not quite what we thought it was.


How likely is it that ten passages would just happen to have factors of 70 x 7? The odds are against it, by better than a quadrillion to one.   Seems like the biblical authors deliberately put the numbers in there for us to find, as if it might mean something important to them. Actually, it does not bother me much to think that I may be the only one to know this or care.


But I get a chuckle thinking about preachers standing up on a Sunday and reading from the Bible, and being entirely clueless that some passages they are reading are mathematical formulations.


Well, maybe they’ll figure it out someday.


Posted January 9, 2015

Sower’s sevens math calculations are at:


The eighth and ninth examples of Sower’s “70 x 7” are at the end of this next post:


The tenth example of Sower’s “70 x 7” is at:



0140 wallpaper butterflies 1400 x 1100 gif



Posted in Number puzzles, Puzzles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment


2014 02 04 computer generated equal segments of seven

This is a new discovery about the Bible!

Are results with the Sower’s parables numbers (30, 60, 100 or 100, 60, 30) a coincidence, a lucky charm, a secret code by conspirators, or a special gift?

The Sower’s parables numbers, placed on the lips of Jesus in the Gospel, act like a mathematical key to unlock hidden sevens in many parts of the Bible, both New Testament and Hebrew Bible.

The Sower’s sevens do not appear unless you do the multiplications with the Sower’s parables numbers (30-60-100 or 100-60-30), which act as a key to unlock the sevens. The same pattern of emerging “seventy times seven” factors is in at least eight different number sets in the Bible.

This indicates that some of these texts may be non-literal or at least somewhat finessed. For example, Revelation’s names of the tribes (taken as the numerical equivalents of their Greek letters) seem to be a mathematical construction, built to fit a biblical “70 x 7” (Matthew 18:22 (footnote NRSV-1-)). The list of tribal names seems to have been altered slightly relative to Genesis so that it can share a numerical pattern common to many other parts of the Bible.

When I bring up this subject of the hidden sevens derived from the Sower’s parables numbers, some people mistakenly assume I am talking about the symbolism of numbers or some such numerological nonsense. No, I am not talking about symbolism, but actual math formulas. If you don’t do the math, you don’t see the sevens!

Now with this eighth instance of Sower’s parables numbers (30, 60, 100) yielding factors of “70 x 7” (my post and its continuation), I have to ask myself if it could be just a coincidence. Yes, of course it could be just a coincidence!

But what are the odds against finding a biblical “seventy times seven” over and over and over again? (Matthew 18:22 (footnote NRSV-1-)) By applying Sower’s numbers, I’ve found a factor of “seventy times seven” in eight number sets in the Bible. The odds against finding it once are, very conservatively, 1 in (7 x 7). The odds against finding it eight times are (1 in 49),8 or 1 in 33,232,930,569,601, or approximately 1 in 33 trillion. Other parts of the Bible yield sevens-cubed and such.

Odds against a random occurrence of so many instances of seven-factors are overwhelming.

It could still be just a coincidence. After all, people have been known to win the lottery against all odds.

But could it be that the biblical authors deliberately constructed texts to produce sevens?? Meaning – the reason that the sevens come out in calculations is because the sevens were secretly hidden in the texts by the authors?

Why would someone hide sevens? And apparently, many authors over many hundreds of years did this. Because they believed that seven was somehow lucky or even holy?? Perhaps. Certainly there are enough sevens printed in the Bible, not hidden, to let us know seven was favored.

Or perhaps a hidden numerical code had some utility – perhaps it could have served as a secret numerical signature to verify the origin of a text?? Such a security precaution could have helped ancient Jewish insiders to maintain group cohesiveness, to effectively propagandize those to be dominated (other tribes) or reformed (Pagan-Gentiles), to detect forgeries by outsiders, or (as a friend adds) to detect alterations of the texts.

Well, that’s a great conspiracy theory about a secret numerical signature; really just coming out of my overactive imagination. The Sower’s numbers, when applied using basically the same method (but not always exactly the same), give similar sorts of seven-results, but the number puzzles are not similar enough to have much utility as a secret conspiracy code.

Rather than a conspiracy, the use of Sower’s numbers may have been a teaching tool, something the elders wanted to give to their children and their disciple followers to promote mental agility and awareness. Of course, I can’t know for sure what the ancient writers intended. But certainly, gaining awareness is critical to one’s development and the foundation for much that is important; for example, being able to empathize with others and show compassion.

Many would assert that the purpose of the Bible is to comfort us, make us moral, or inspire us to acts of social justice. Just as important, if not more so, is deepening awareness, because without sufficient awareness we cannot be comforted, moral, or advocates for justice.

Maybe the biblical authors were not trying to encourage people to cling to idols (whether of clay or textual), but rather to experience a spiritual journey based on faith, not certainty. The only certain thing is the impermanence of all things, even cherished perceptions. I suspect that most people practicing a religion do so because they get some comfort from it and that’s fine. But perhaps it is also important to live not just at the surface of our lives, superficially, but rather to experience freedom and to have a depth of experience and awareness. The Sower’s numbers definitely add another dimension to the reader’s experience of the Bible. Once you realize that some of the story-telling may be based on math, you have an entirely different perception of it all. Maybe the goal of the biblical authors is to allow you the freedom to change your perception??

As Jesus reportedly said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:32)

Spiritual freedom would have to be a great gift.

Were the biblical authors trying to design “never-to-be-changed-dogma” or instead, were they trying to provide a spiritual experience for their readers? Were the authors trying to lead people into idolatry – worship of particular ideas, particular texts? Or lead them into spiritual freedom?

Perhaps the numerical underpinnings or mathematical “bare bones” are supposed to demonstrate that the texts are a construction. This is a safety device. The disciple being mentored was gently led, when mature or sophisticated enough, to view the texts as a construction; thereby learning not to idolize them; thereby learning that he/she was supposed to construct his/her own interior spiritual spaces. Being kept safe from idolatry would have to be a great gift.

Of course I do not know for sure the intent of the biblical authors.

But perhaps the biblical authors wisely constructed their texts around a framework of repeating and reproducible numerical formulas so that anyone who is “perceiving” (Acts 28:26-27) can recognize this and be safe from falling into idolatry. Today, we can certainly be immune to the claims of those saying they know the absolute truth “infallibly.”

Because the method of solving a number puzzle using Sower’s numbers varies slightly from one biblical number set to another, it seems like the biblical authors were playing a game of “one-upmanship,” trying to outdo previous writers and trying to impress the people they were writing for. There is a slight shift in the method for solving what would otherwise be an identical puzzle, perhaps designed to elicit applause?? Were prizes given for the most-clever puzzle?

But I admit I don’t fully understand why a people would want to put seven-producing puzzles into writings about the doings of Yahweh and the Savior. I don’t understand why I was not taught as a child that the Sower’s parables numbers produce “seventy times seven” in many parts of the Bible. Certainly I am not the first person to notice this?!!! Or am I?? !!! Interesting that I never heard a sermon informing me that certain parts of the Bible are based on math formulas.

I also have to question the popular idea that the books of the Gospel were written independently. Three of the seven-solutions are gained by combining various books of the Gospel. I do believe that I am the first person to discover sevens derived from the Sower’s parables numbers, and that this is something new, because I do not recall anyone else stating that for some books of the Gospel, the number patterns — when the books are COMBINED — indicate the books had the same author or group of authors, or the same editor or group of editors at some point in their development.

It’s been interesting playing with the numbers, but have I done it right? Maybe no one today remembers how to work the puzzles, and no one knows for sure?? If anyone out there knows of a tradition, please let me know! One possibility is that what I have discovered is merely an artifact (either side-effect or just the “tip of the iceberg”) of some more meaningful mathematical reality, something powerfully awesome and forgotten centuries ago.

Sower’s sevens sprouting up would seem to have some significance, but I can still agree it could all be just a coincidence. Maybe there are no number puzzles in the Bible. Maybe it only seems like there are.

Sower’s sevens math calculations are at:


The eighth example of Sower’s “70 x 7” is at the end of this next post:


Posted in Number puzzles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments


2014 02 07 Seven of each kind

How to use the Sower’s parables numbers 30, 60, 100

And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:13 (NRSV))  The previous verse (13:12) contains the word “riddle” (NRSV footnote).

How can I resist looking for a number puzzle when I see “riddle” and “three”?

Here are faith, hope, love in Greek:

πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη (from 1 Corinthians 13:13 (SBL Greek New Testament))

This puzzle, by Paul the Apostle, is short and sweet:

I take the numerical value of the Greek first-letter from each of “faith, hope, love.”

Π = 80

Ε = 5

Α = 1

Using the Sower’s parables numbers 30-60-100 and 100-60-30 (Sower’s verses one click):

30 x 80 = 2,400

60 x 5 = 300

100 x 1 = 100

Sum of products = 2,800 = 70 x 40; both special numbers in the Bible.

100 x 80 = 8,000

60 x 5 = 300

30 x 1 = 30

Sum of products = 8,330 = 70 x 7 x 17

A factor of 490 or “seventy times seven” (found in Matthew 18:22 (footnote NRSV) -18:22-”).

That is just one example of how to use the Sower’s parables numbers.

By applying Sower’s numbers, I’ve found a factor of “seventy times seven” in seven parts of the Bible, which suggests a shared numerical foundation for those passages.

The odds against finding it once are, very conservatively, 1 in (7 x 7).  The odds against finding it seven times are (1 in 49)7 or 1 in 678,223,072,849.  Other parts of the Bible yield sevens-cubed and such.

The other sets of numbers are multiples of three.  You divide a number set into three equal parts and then multiply with the Sower’s numbers as I just showed you.

More examples at my post:


A popular idea is that the books of the Gospel were written independently.  However, three of the seven-solutions are gained by combining various books.

But of course finding sevens and seventies could be just a lucky coincidence.

2014 02 07 purple heart

Posted in Number puzzles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment




Here is a symbol from Tibet.  I saw it on a DVD, on a flag at a Tibetan Buddhist temple.  It is called the “Endless Knot.”


2014 01 12 The Endless Knot Buddhist symbol gif

The Endless Knot, a Buddhist symbol


The Buddhist Endless Knot is also called the Unending Knot, the Eternal Knot, the Knot of Eternity, or the Infinite Knot.


It may symbolize “Buddha’s endless wisdom and compassion. It indicates continuity as the underlying reality of existence.” -1-


I have put the Buddhist Endless Knot here for the convenience of those who do not want to plow through many pages of Bible discussion in another post in this blog where it is mentioned.


Online, it doesn’t seem to matter if this Buddhist symbol is rotated horizontally or even turned 90 degrees??


I was not able to find an image of this symbol when I searched for it on the Dalai Lama website.


I like bright colors but I suspect that a Buddhist might rather have a plain grayish image so as to not disturb the calm peacefulness found in his/her meditation.  But as this symbol is used now in interior decorating, I suppose I would not be the first to add some bright color like red, blue, or yellow.



2014 01 11 The Endless Knot eternal infinite color design gif



The Endless Knot Buddhist symbol

Posted in Discussions, Mysteries | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment


2013 09 01 consubstantial

Why is it that US Catholics are required to say made-up things like “consubstantial” and “was incarnate” when saying the Nicene Creed, but the French are allowed to speak actual French instead?

While Americans say, “consubstantial with the Father,” the French say, “of the same nature as the Father,” (“de même nature que le Père”).

While Americans say, “by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man,” the French say, “by the Holy Spirit, he took flesh from the Virgin Mary, and made himself man,” (“par l’Esprit Saint, il a pris chair de la Vierge Marie, et s’est fait homme”).  In the French version, Mary is not just a vessel, not just incidental, but rather has a fruitful womb which gives “flesh.”  (Luke 1:42 (NRSV))

Are the French overdue for a Vatican revision to their Creed or have they already refused to do Latin-speak, preferring instead to speak actual French?   Anyone know?  Anyone know why American pew-sitters will recite anything they are told to recite?

How many Americans just continue to say, “one in being with the Father,” and “by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary,” because they cannot say the tongue-twister words of the new American version?

The French version does not follow the English, “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God;” rather, the French says, “He is God, born of God, light, born of the light, true God, born of the true God.” (“Il est Dieu, né de Dieu, lumière, née de la lumière, vrai Dieu, né du vrai Dieu,”) always keeping a distinction between Father and Son, by repeating that the Son is “born.”  Such repetition is not in the Latin.  Perhaps the French do it their way to make sure that all the faithful understand that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father??  Of course I’m not sure what the intent is.  Perhaps it is simply that they don’t care to be instructed by Italians at the Vatican on how to speak French.

Interesting that in the phrase “le Père; et par lui tout a été fait,” the words “par lui” can mean either “by him” or “through him,” so it is up to the reader to decide if “all was made” by the Father (the “Père,” just mentioned) or through the Son.   Strictly speaking, since the Father has just been mentioned, “him” would have to mean the Father, unless it is very clear someone else mentioned earlier was intended.  So you get, “the Father, and by him all was made.”  Unless you remember the Council of Nicaea and then you know who made what and through whom it was made.

Any French majors out there are welcome to help me refine my translations.   I hope that what I remember of the French I knew in high school is sufficient for getting me through this post.  Maybe not.

There are many ways to view scripture, tradition, and history.  I am glad that the Church is a family of faiths, not monolithic – it has unity, not uniformity.


Link to Creed at US bishops’ website


Link to Creed at French bishops’ website


Links to episcopal conferences at the Catholic News Agency


Creeds viewed on or about August 27, 2013

Update: Mention of a 1957 prayer book was removed – the creed in the prayer book was not a translation of the adjoining Latin, but a different creed.

Posted in Contrasts, Translations | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments