Finally, The Truth Comes Out!

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnnaRose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AnnaRose

Guest
A few weeks ago, while in a bible study group, the statement came up about the miracle of the bread and fish and how the real miracle was that people shared with others. I heard that preached by our previous pastor many years ago, but didn’t believe it. Luckily a friend in the group debated it and the group ended up 50/50 towards it.

Yesterday, my bible study friend told me she spoke with a retired priest who is a specialist in theology about the subject. He said, “why that’s an old German heresy that was taught a long time ago!” It’s not true and unfortunately was being taught to young priests.

Amen! 👍​

We save forests, whales and aluminum cans, …why not human life?
 
I’ve even heard it in homilies, though not recently. Why anyone, especially clergy, would want to downgrade a mind-boggling miracle to a “miracle” of sharing is beyond me. That would make it simply a warm, fuzzy story of little value to the Gospels. People aren’t willing to die for warm fuzzies.
 
Why is it that people can accept that Jesus rose from the dead, was born of an eternal-virgin mother, and exists in the Real Presence, but think he couldn’t multiply bread and fish?
 
This is just one of many attempts to modernize Jesus and turn him into a kitty cat instead of the Lion of Judah.
 
srlucado said:
Why is it that people can accept that Jesus rose from the dead, was born of an eternal-virgin mother, and exists in the Real Presence, but think he couldn’t multiply bread and fish?
Click to expand...
Part of the trouble is that too many Catholics DO NOT believe these truths !!
 
I haven’t heard this in a while, but I would ask anyone that would believe such a heresy to explain Matt 16:6-12 if the “miracle” was only in getting people to share.
 
Come to think of it…the disciples and Jesus were under the impression that the people did not have anything to eat, if we take the Gospel accounts here. Isn’t it odd that these priests just suddenly come up and say, “Oh, they’re just being stingy and trying to hoard food until Jesus convinced them to share,” as if the Son of God Himself did not know what was happening in the back? :rolleyes:

It reminds me of that little experiment Thomas Jefferson did. Using a razor, he cut out passages from the four Gospels from his Bible, mingling excerpts from one text to those of another in order to create a single narrative: the result was a little book called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. On the way, though, he removed all those references to the supernatural as well as what he perceived as misinterpretations by the Evangelists.

The end product of this attempt is a Jesus who is just one of those ‘good men’ who taught a lot of nice things and was killed because of it: there are no angels, no demons, no prophecies, no miracles, no heavenly voices, and no resurrection involved whatsoever. Jefferson never included them, to the point that he even butchered Luke’s statement that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature”: he left out “before God and men.”

The sad part is, many people today are still heading the same path as Pres. Jefferson, wielding their razors to chop everything that doesn’t fit with their agenda, all in the name of rationalizing.
 
srlucado said:
The Arian heresy is alive and well…
Click to expand...
Well, personally I think the original Arians were more better than some of these people. At least they believed in a God and that He was the Father of Jesus!

Arius once wrote this in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (the Arian bishop who baptized Constantine at his deathbed):

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.
 
I do not wish to appear to be endorsing the modernist interpretation of that miracle (i.e., the interpretation that Jesus got them to share food that was there all along anyway), but I would like to suggest that perhaps one of the reasons a literal interpretation is resisted in modern times even by some Catholics is that as a miracle it has too much of the air of a magician at work. Jesus’ healing miracles still seem to illuminate the profound connection between salvation and health, while the Resurrection is a manifestation of the glory of God in the world. Multiplying loaves and fishes or, as in Cana, changing water into wine seems to modern sensibilities in comparison a pedestrian and unworthy way of showing that one is divine. The question of the reality of the miracle does not change the fact that it sounds like a story meant to beguile people more naive than we think of ourselves as being. I suppose we could then see the story as also being a lesson in humbling ourselves.
 
Although miracles are out of the ordinary way of things, they happen every day and certainly those performed by Jesus really did happen, You may wish to read the book “Miracles” by CS Lewis that gives and excellent discussion on this topic.
 
jbuck919 said:
I do not wish to appear to be endorsing the modernist interpretation of that miracle (i.e., the interpretation that Jesus got them to share food that was there all along anyway), but I would like to suggest that perhaps one of the reasons a literal interpretation is resisted in modern times even by some Catholics is that as a miracle it has too much of the air of a magician at work. Jesus’ healing miracles still seem to illuminate the profound connection between salvation and health, while the Resurrection is a manifestation of the glory of God in the world. Multiplying loaves and fishes or, as in Cana, changing water into wine seems to modern sensibilities in comparison a pedestrian and unworthy way of showing that one is divine. The question of the reality of the miracle does not change the fact that it sounds like a story meant to beguile people more naive than we think of ourselves as being. I suppose we could then see the story as also being a lesson in humbling ourselves.
Click to expand...
Jesus’ miracles, even the ones that don’t seem too important to others, have a much deeper meaning than what is on the surface. For example, the miracle of the loaves and fishes prefigures the gift of the Eucharist.

I have heard many priests discuss the miracle of the loaves and fishes, and make reference to the mindset of the “historical, critical” method of certain theologians from where this watering down of the Gospel comes from. This “watering down” eventually ends up with those explaining away the Resurrection of Our Lord as though it were a metaphor that the apostles gave their lives for. Little by little, they are sapping the supernatural out of the Gospels.
 
I’ve heard that kind of observation about the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well, but it is utter nonsense. The narrative in Matthew says that after Jesus broke the loaves and fish that he had the disciples distribute them to the crowd of thousands. Moreover, all ate their fill and were satisfied. The remaining extra food from the original loaves and fish filled 12 baskets. This is not a reference to people sharing that which they themselves had. Jesus gave them the food that was consumed and there was an abundant surplus at the end.

In John’s gospel the narrative describes this instance in the following way:
John 6:14
When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!”
Click to expand...
Some translations use the word “miracle” in place of the word “sign” in the verse. If Jesus “only” got the people to share they would not have said, “This is indeed the prophet who has come into the world.” In John’s gospel the word “sign” is synonomous with “miracle”. This can be easily seen in the example of the miracle of the water to wine at the marriage feast of Cana where again the miracle is referred to as a sign. John uses the word sign interchangeably for miracle and does so with a purpose. John does this to make people look at the miracles as signs to his true identity.

Reducing the multiplication of the loaves and fishes to “sharing” takes away the point of the narrative and the truth of what Jesus actually did.
 
Pax said:
I’ve heard that kind of observation about the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well, but it is utter nonsense. The narrative in Matthew says that after Jesus broke the loaves and fish that he had the disciples distribute them to the crowd of thousands. Moreover, all ate their fill and were satisfied. The remaining extra food from the original loaves and fish filled 12 baskets. This is not a reference to people sharing that which they themselves had. Jesus gave them the food that was consumed and there was an abundant surplus at the end.

In John’s gospel the narrative describes this instance in the following way:

Some translations use the word “miracle” in place of the word “sign” in the verse. If Jesus “only” got the people to share they would not have said, “This is indeed the prophet who has come into the world.” In John’s gospel the word “sign” is synonomous with “miracle”. This can be easily seen in the example of the miracle of the water to wine at the marriage feast of Cana where again the miracle is referred to as a sign. John uses the word sign interchangeably for miracle and does so with a purpose. John does this to make people look at the miracles as signs to his true identity.

Reducing the multiplication of the loaves and fishes to “sharing” takes away the point of the narrative and the truth of what Jesus actually did.
Click to expand...
Good points!

And, what jumped out at me is that Jesus gave the loaves and fishes to the disciples to distribute them. Just as he has annointed priests to distribute the Eucharist to us! And, 12 baskets left over…a perfect number…there is always more of the Lord, his grace never stops coming to us…(.unless we stop it).
 
Dorothy said:
Jesus’ miracles, even the ones that don’t seem too important to others, have a much deeper meaning than what is on the surface. For example, the miracle of the loaves and fishes prefigures the gift of the Eucharist.

I have heard many priests discuss the miracle of the loaves and fishes, and make reference to the mindset of the “historical, critical” method of certain theologians from where this watering down of the Gospel comes from. This “watering down” eventually ends up with those explaining away the Resurrection of Our Lord as though it were a metaphor that the apostles gave their lives for. Little by little, they are sapping the supernatural out of the Gospels.
Click to expand...
precisely. since this miracle is the segue into the rest of John 6, the teaching on the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ, distorting the miracle distorts the subsequent teaching as well.

what does this say about the people who came to Jesus the next day demanding more bread and fish?
 
***Finally, The Truth Comes Out!
A* few weeks ago, while in a bible study group, the statement came up about the miracle of the bread and fish and how the real miracle was that people shared with others. I heard that preached by our previous pastor many years ago, but didn’t believe it. Luckily a friend in the group debated it and the group ended up 50/50 towards it.

Yesterday, my bible study friend told me she spoke with a retired priest who is a specialist in theology about the subject. He said, “why that’s an old German heresy that was taught a long time ago!” It’s not true and unfortunately was being taught to young priests.****

Another classic example where serious attempts are made to distort the scriptures, to present a secptical view of the gospel story and to generally promote some modernist or fake theological arguement which confuses Catholics - especially young Cathoics who have a hard time trying to defend their faith - and downplay the awe and wonder and greatness and power of the miracles performed by Jesus.

It becomes a shocker, of course, if such absolute nonsense is espoused by any priest who should know better!

The miracle itself was in the multiplication of the loves and fish to feed about 5000 people who had followed Jesus, most of whom would have considered themselves greatly blessed to have shared in or witnessed this great miracle. (And may I add, who enjoyed the free lunch - my bad joke)
 
AnnaRose said:
A few weeks ago, while in a bible study group, the statement came up about the miracle of the bread and fish and how the real miracle was that people shared with others. I heard that preached by our previous pastor many years ago, but didn’t believe it. Luckily a friend in the group debated it and the group ended up 50/50 towards it.

Yesterday, my bible study friend told me she spoke with a retired priest who is a specialist in theology about the subject. He said, “why that’s an old German heresy that was taught a long time ago!” It’s not true and unfortunately was being taught to young priests.

Amen! 👍​

We save forests, whales and aluminum cans, …why not human life?
Click to expand...
I love your signature, Anna. 👍👍
What miracle would there be in people sharing what they have if they already love one another? If they used to be sworn enemies, though, there you’d have one… but still, that all those people would be fully fed from only 5 breads and 2 fishes is quite an unusual accomplishment anyhow. If there were anything else, they certainly would have mentioned it. These people were listening to Jesus for so long and I doubt they thought it would take that much time…
 
Ryan_Herft said:
Another classic example where serious attempts are made to distort the scriptures, to present a secptical view of the gospel story and to generally promote some modernist or fake theological arguement which confuses Catholics - especially young Cathoics who have a hard time trying to defend their faith - and downplay the awe and wonder and greatness and power of the miracles performed by Jesus.

It becomes a shocker, of course, if such absolute nonsense is espoused by any priest who should know better!

The miracle itself was in the multiplication of the loves and fish to feed about 5000 people who had followed Jesus, most of whom would have considered themselves greatly blessed to have shared in or witnessed this great miracle. (And may I add, who enjoyed the free lunch - my bad joke)
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t judge people too harshly, Ryan, who take a less literal view of scripture than you do.
Let’s face it. Virtually everybody interprets scripture to some extend. If we didn’t, all of us would be in jail, as the law doesn’t take too kindly to the stoning to death of young women for the crime of not being a virgin on their wedding day, to give but one example.

Regarding the veracity of miracles, I think we ought to keep in mind that many contemporary, well-educated people claim to have witnessed miracles.
There are scores of (Western) devotees of yogis and other supposed holy men, who swear up and down that they have witnessed miracles of exactly the sort ascribed to Jesus:
raising the dead, materializing objects, flying without the aid of technology etc.

You can actually watch these ‘miracles’ on the web, on places like Youtube,
You will probably fail to be impressed by this ‘evidence’, just like me.

We have to conclude from this that people who are enthralled by a religious preacher are extremely unreliable witnesses, therefore we can not assume that a suspension of the laws of nature has occurred, merely because someone claims to have seen it happen.

We just have no way of knowing if Jesus’ miracles actually took place.
People who claim to be certain of this must have sources of information that are unavailable to me.
 
=AnnaRose;6564620]A few weeks ago, while in a bible study group, the statement came up about the miracle of the bread and fish and how the real miracle was that people shared with others. I heard that preached by our previous pastor many years ago, but didn’t believe it. Luckily a friend in the group debated it and the group ended up 50/50 towards it.
Click to expand...
Yesterday, my bible study friend told me she spoke with a retired priest who is a specialist in theology about the subject. He said, “why that’s an old German heresy that was taught a long time ago!” It’s not true and unfortunately was being taught to young priests.
Click to expand...

Amen! 👍​

We save forests, whales and aluminum cans, …why not human life?
Click to expand...
One MUST ALWAYS be prepared to defend our faith.

From the current Code of Canon Law:

Can. 750 Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

**Can. 752 **While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Why would this only the multiplicaton of the loafs an fishes “be simply a story of sharing?”:hmmm:

It stems from unbelief in the Most Holy Eucharist actually and Really being the “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Glorified Body of the Risen Christ.”

The first thing I would have done is ask: What is you’re understanding og the Holy Eucharist? That’s the REAL ISSUE.

FACT: God fed the Hewbrew nation with Manna [Exo. 16]

FACT: 2 Kings The Prophet Elishia MUTIPLIES BREAD

FACT There is no biblical evidence [no indications] that this is just a parable

FACT MARK 8: 14-21 "Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
[16] And they discussed it with one another, saying, “We have no bread.” And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

Does Jesus make these events sound like they are about sharing? NO! Absolutely NOT!

If these TWO incidents were only parables; surely Christ would have so stated here.

FACT In Matt. 14:22 which follows immediately, the feeding of the 5.000 Jesus does another Miracle: Walking on water to further demonistrate God’s mastery over His Created Universe.

We must be willing to take the flack and support the truth always!
 
Jesus refers to this miracle in Matt 16. Since Jesus is reminding his disciples of how he fed 5000 with 5 loaves how can anyone preach that this is a metaphor for getting them to share what was already present?

Matthew Chapter 16
Jesus said to them, "Look out, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
They concluded among themselves, saying, “It is because we have brought no bread.”
When Jesus became aware of this he said, “You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread?
Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up?
Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up?
How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Then they understood 7 that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees
Click to expand...
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top