Jesus' REAL Miracles

[djeter]

The miracle of the loaves and fishes was not getting a few loaves and dried fish to multiply – it was far more than that, as Gil Bailie points out in this wonderful piece of exegesis. Seen in the broader context of Jesus’ ministry, what the miracle actually was is very different from the obvious…

More here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/16/jesus%e2%80%99-real-miracles/

dj

 

[Fidelis]

Don’t bother reading this folks-- it’s the same old weak explanation hippie priests have been trying to foist on the poor laity since the early 70’s. Here’s the punchline, taken from the blog entry:

All the Gospel accounts speak of Jesus praying a blessing before the miracle occurred. In other words, he didn’t just go to the few loaves and dried fish and cause them to multiply; he gave thanks to God in words to which the people listened carefully. It was then that the miracle occurred. By now the reader will have guessed what I think the miracle was. Jesus opened their hearts, and they, in turn, opened their satchels, and the greatest miracle of all occurred…Changing the human heart and liberating those trapped in religious superstition is simply a greater miracle than pulling loaves and dried fish out of a basket. The feeding of the multitude was a real miracle. The miracle was a new kind of community, one generated by prayer and inclusion, a “new generation.”

This has always struck me as a particulary silly interpretation of the multiplication of the loaves. Are you telling me the people were so struck by Jesus getting them to share their own bread that afterward they followed him around the lake hoping that he would make them share their bread again? Puh-leese!!

Jesus’ miracle here is meant to be understood in exactly the way it sounds: by virtue of his power as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, he multiplied a few loaves and fishes and fed 5000 people.

 

[Nita]

In addition, if there were baskets of food** left over **after everyone had eaten their fill, one wonders how Jesus and the apostles could ever have thought there was a problem in the first place. To have had that much food left over would have meant almost everyone must have brought some. They would just have started eating when they were hungry.

 

[patrick457]

The miracle of the loaves and fishes was not getting a few loaves and dried fish to multiply – it was far more than that, as Gil Bailie points out in this wonderful piece of exegesis. Seen in the broader context of Jesus’ ministry, what the miracle actually was is very different from the obvious…

More here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/16/jesus%e2%80%99-real-miracles/

dj

Oh no, not the whole “miracle of sharing” all over again!

Let’s review the gospel accounts, shall we? Here’s the account as related by Mark and by John:

And the apostles are gathered together to Jesus, and reported to Him all, what they had done and what they had taught. And He said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a deserted place and rest a while” (for those coming and those going were many, and not even to eat had they time); and they went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves. And they saw them departing, and many recognized them; and on foot they ran together from all the cities and arrived ahead of them. And having come forth, He saw a great multitude, and He was moved with compassion on them, for they were like sheep not having a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things.

And now the hour being advanced, His disciples, having come near to Him, say, “This place is deserted and the hour is now advanced. Send them away so that they can go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” Now answering, He said to them, “You give them something to eat.” And they say to Him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?” And He said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go, see!” And when they found out, they say, “Five, and two fishes.”

And He commanded them all to recline in groups on the green grass, and they reclined, ‘plot by plot’, by hundreds and by fifties. And having taken the five loaves and the two fishes, having looked up to the heaven, He blessed and broke the loaves, and was giving them to [His] disciples that they may set before them; and He divided the two fishes among them all. And they all ate and were satisfied, and they took up of the broken pieces twelve baskets full, and of the fishes. And those who had eaten [of the loaves] were five thousand men.

-Mark 6:30-44

After these Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee (of Tiberias), and there was following Him a great multitude, because they were seeing His signs which He was performing on the sick. And Jesus went up on the mount, and He was there sitting with His disciples. Now the Passover was near - the festival of the Judeans.

Then Jesus, having lifted up His eyes and having seen that a great multitude was coming to Him, says to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?” Now this He said, testing Him, for He Himself had known what He was intending to do. Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not enough for them, for each one to get a little.”

One of his disciples - Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter - says to Him, “There is a boy here who has five loaves of barley and two small fishes, but these, what are they for so many?” Then Jesus said, “Make the people recline.” Now there was much grass in the place. The men then reclined, in number about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves, and having given thanks He distributed to those reclining; likewise also from the small fishes, as much as they wished. And when they were satisfied, He says to His disciples, “Gather together the broken pieces that are left over so that nothing may be lost.” Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve handbaskets with the fragments of the five loaves of barley which were left over by those who had eaten.

Then the men having seen the sign that Jesus performed, said, “This is truly the Prophet who is coming to the world!” Jesus therefore, having known that they are about to come and take him by force to make him king, went back again to the mountain by Himself alone.

-John 6:1-15

There’s nothing in the text which states that the crowd hid foodstuffs under their clothes or whatnot. Jesus must have been too stupid to not realize this and tell the disciples that THEY give them something to eat; I mean, being both fully divine and fully human and all, you’d expect He’d know those things.

 

[FCEGM]

Don’t bother reading this folks-- it’s the same old weak explanation hippie priests have been trying to foist on the poor laity since the early 70’s. Here’s the punchline, taken from the blog entry:

This has always struck me as a particulary silly interpretation of the multiplication of the loaves. Are you telling me the people were so struck by Jesus getting them to share their own bread that afterward they followed him around the lake hoping that he would make them share their bread again? Puh-leese!!

Jesus’ miracle here is meant to be understood in exactly the way it sounds: by virtue of his power as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, he multiplied a few loaves and fishes and fed 5000 people.

I will join you:

 

[djeter]

Don’t bother reading this folks-- it’s the same old weak explanation hippie priests have been trying to foist on the poor laity since the early 70’s. Here’s the punchline, taken from the blog entry:

This has always struck me as a particulary silly interpretation of the multiplication of the loaves. Are you telling me the people were so struck by Jesus getting them to share their own bread that afterward they followed him around the lake hoping that he would make them share their bread again? Puh-leese!!

Jesus’ miracle here is meant to be understood in exactly the way it sounds: by virtue of his power as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, he multiplied a few loaves and fishes and fed 5000 people.

I don’t think the Bailie’s interpretation is saying the multiplicaton of loaves didn’t happen but he places it within the table fellowship that marked his ministry.

“The point of the feeding, in my opinion, was not food; it was the breaking down of religious and social barriers that Jesus had been challenging as spiritually inconsequential in his preaching. It was hands-on learning. It was practice for living in the kingdom.”

Your reading is very prejudiced. Sorry you didn’t like it but it really has nothing to do with the 70’s “hippie priest” reading you claim it does. From a book on Rene Girard’s mimetic theories of violence in the mid 90’s. The exegesis forces one to look beyond the flashy miracles to the point of the miracles – not to deny the miracles.

I enjoyed it and I hope others do.

dj

 

[djeter]

Oh no, not the whole “miracle of sharing” all over again!

Let’s review the gospel accounts, shall we? Here’s the account as related by Mark and by John:

And the apostles are gathered together to Jesus, and reported to Him all, what they had done and what they had taught. And He said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a deserted place and rest a while” (for those coming and those going were many, and not even to eat had they time); and they went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves. And they saw them departing, and many recognized them; and on foot they ran together from all the cities and arrived ahead of them. And having come forth, He saw a great multitude, and He was moved with compassion on them, for they were like sheep not having a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things.

And now the hour being advanced, His disciples, having come near to Him, say, “This place is deserted and the hour is now advanced. Send them away so that they can go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” Now answering, He said to them, “You give them something to eat.” And they say to Him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?” And He said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go, see!” And when they found out, they say, “Five, and two fishes.”

And He commanded them all to recline in groups on the green grass, and they reclined, ‘plot by plot’, by hundreds and by fifties. And having taken the five loaves and the two fishes, having looked up to the heaven, He blessed and broke the loaves, and was giving them to [His] disciples that they may set before them; and He divided the two fishes among them all. And they all ate and were satisfied, and they took up of the broken pieces twelve baskets full, and of the fishes. And those who had eaten [of the loaves] were five thousand men.

-Mark 6:30-44

After these Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee (of Tiberias), and there was following Him a great multitude, because they were seeing His signs which He was performing on the sick. And Jesus went up on the mount, and He was there sitting with His disciples. Now the Passover was near - the festival of the Judeans.

Then Jesus, having lifted up His eyes and having seen that a great multitude was coming to Him, says to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?” Now this He said, testing Him, for He Himself had known what He was intending to do. Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not enough for them, for each one to get a little.”

One of his disciples - Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter - says to Him, “There is a boy here who has five loaves of barley and two small fishes, but these, what are they for so many?” Then Jesus said, “Make the people recline.” Now there was much grass in the place. The men then reclined, in number about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves, and having given thanks He distributed to those reclining; likewise also from the small fishes, as much as they wished. And when they were satisfied, He says to His disciples, “Gather together the broken pieces that are left over so that nothing may be lost.” Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve handbaskets with the fragments of the five loaves of barley which were left over by those who had eaten.

Then the men having seen the sign that Jesus performed, said, “This is truly the Prophet who is coming to the world!” Jesus therefore, having known that they are about to come and take him by force to make him king, went back again to the mountain by Himself alone.

-John 6:1-15

There’s nothing in the text which states that the crowd hid foodstuffs under their clothes or whatnot. Jesus must have been too stupid to not realize this and tell the disciples that THEY give them something to eat; I mean, being both fully divine and fully human and all, you’d expect He’d know those things.

A closer reading will show Bailie is not promoting a “miracle of sharing” IMHO. His exegesis shows the true miracle behind the miracle and added to my appreciation of this gospel event.

Bailie is advocating this: “In approaching the miracles, therefore, we should look to their spiritual effect primarily and strive to understand them on that level first.” Doesn’t that make sense to you? He doesn’t say here that the miracle never happened or that it really was accomplished by sharing.

dj

 

[patrick457]

A closer reading will show Bailie is not promoting a “miracle of sharing” IMHO. His exegesis shows the true miracle behind the miracle and added to my appreciation of this gospel event.

dj

Hmm…you may be right. Still, IMHO there are places where Bailie’s wording suspiciously leans toward such an interpretation. I quote with underlines (emphases original):

The various Gospel accounts of Jesus feeding large crowds from scant supplies may be versions of one memorable event for which several accounts survived. In the present form, the accounts presuppose that those who had come to hear him, some from considerable distance, brought no food with them. Jesus’ audience would have been almost exclusively made up of Jews, and, as I pointed out, most religious-minded Jews of the time would have taken the precaution of bringing with them enough bread or dried fish to insure that they would not be forced to eat food whose ritual purity was in doubt.

But taking the precaution of bringing a supply of ritually clean food would have been only one hurdle, and perhaps not the largest one. For eating these provisions while in the company of others of uncertain moral and religious character would have placed one in jeopardy of moral contamination from sinners and pagans. The fact that Jesus had a reputation for attracting and tolerating the socially marginal would have added to the anxiety of observant Jews in this regard. Not knowing the moral and religious status of those sitting nearby would have made many reluctant to bring out whatever provisions they had with them.

In all the accounts of Jesus feeding the multitude, it is Jesus who takes the initiative and invites the people to sit down and prepare for a meal. Sharing a meal together was his idea, not theirs. For reasons I have already stated, Jesus’ audience probably found the idea unsettling. This wariness, on the other hand, would have been symptomatic of the niggling religious apprehensions from which Jesus was trying to liberate them. Given the role of table fellowship in Jesus’ ministry, it is my view that it was not primarily the lateness of the hour that made the unexpected sharing of a meal necessary, but rather that Jesus decided to drive• home the points he had been making in his preaching by inviting his audience to sit down then and there for the purpose of sharing a meal with those around them. The point of the feeding, in my opinion, was not food; it was the breaking down of religious and social barriers that Jesus had been challenging as spiritually inconsequential in his preaching. It was hands-on learning. It was practice for living in the kingdom.

All the Gospel accounts speak of Jesus praying a blessing before the miracle occurred. In other words, he didn’t just go to the few loaves and dried fish and cause them to multiply; he gave thanks to God in words to which the people listened carefully. It was then that the miracle occurred. By now the reader will have guessed what I think the miracle was. Jesus opened their hearts, and they, in turn, opened their satchels, and the greatest miracle of all occurred.

I say ‘suspiciously’ because the words underlined, especially the final paragraph and the final sentence, kinda sounds like the idea many lay Catholics have heard in pulpits for many years, the one which we usually call ‘the miracle of sharing’: where Jesus somehow convinced everyone to reveal their secret stashes of food and share them with each other. You may be right that Bailie might not have been espousing such an interpretation all along, but I wish he phrased his paragraphs in a less confusing way.

 

[djeter]

This is what he is truly advocating:

“The miracle was a new kind of community, one generated by prayer and inclusion, a “new generation.” Transitory as it may have been, it remains a model for a new community, one on which all human culture will one day have to be based. The social bond that gave the community that Jesus inspired its coherence had one conspicuous feature: the breaking down of religious prejudice.”

And that could come from either interpretation – the miracle-less “miracle of sharing” or the miracle multiplication. And that is the point that I enjoyed – it is less about the miracle as what Jesus wanted the crowd (and us) to take away from the miracle. I used to read the various miracles and exorcisms as just that but now I try to think “What does our Lord want us to know?” As a recent convert I didn’t go through the hippie priest phase of American Catholicism. Although I did go to a Catholic memorial service once where someone hauled out a guitar – kept me away from Church for years, thank you – so I feel your pain.

The whole series of interpretations/exegesis here is located under “Understanding Violence” and deals with Rene Girard’s cultural theories which he illustrates from the Gospels.

dj

 

[NotWorthy]

This is what he is truly advocating:

“The miracle was a new kind of community, one generated by prayer and inclusion, a “new generation.” Transitory as it may have been, it remains a model for a new community, one on which all human culture will one day have to be based. The social bond that gave the community that Jesus inspired its coherence had one conspicuous feature: the breaking down of religious prejudice.”

And that could come from either interpretation – the miracle-less “miracle of sharing” or the miracle multiplication. And that is the point that I enjoyed – it is less about the miracle as what Jesus wanted the crowd (and us) to take away from the miracle. I used to read the various miracles and exorcisms as just that but now I try to think “What does our Lord want us to know?” As a recent convert I didn’t go through the hippie priest phase of American Catholicism. Although I did go to a Catholic memorial service once where someone hauled out a guitar – kept me away from Church for years, thank you – so I feel your pain.

The whole series of interpretations/exegesis here is located under “Understanding Violence” and deals with Rene Girard’s cultural theories which he illustrates from the Gospels.

dj

I think the lesson learned can be best seen by reading John chapter 6. The Jews were looking to Jesus for their wrong needs.

 

[Supercatholic]

OH my my, Here we go again. Some psuedo scholar aka knucklehead comes along and does us a great favor by explaining away the miracles of the loaves and fish. I at one time many years ago fell for this garbage. I can go on in a very long disertation on this nonsense, but with six accounts in the gospels that would take too long. Here’s a quick summery. Two accounts Jesus says “I have great compassion on the crowd and they have nothing to eat” NOTHING TO EAT. This is Jesus talking here. Do the blasphemous interpreters expect me to believe Jesus was a moron and was totally clueless as to the custom of his own culture that “stingy jews” were hiding food? The Gospel of John is the only place that mentions the little boy with food. This is the one the nutcases use to substantiate their argument. Watch me crush that notion. It doesn’t mention it was his lunch. And there certainly is no mention of the boy’s generosity. For all we know the boy may have sold the bread and fish to the disciples. Afterall the emphasis was on (buying) food. When our semi retired religious educator gave us the “sharing junk” in an alleged pathetic bible study I protested. I said “So what you’re really saying is The Jewish people are so greedy it would take a MIRACLE to get them to share their hidden food and Jesus by his good example caused this sharing miracle to happen”. If that don’t beat all we even had a Jewish person in our class who was too stupid to realize she had just been insulted by that false teaching and sided with the instructor. Days later I went to complain of the poor catechises in our parish to the monsignor. And guess what. HE SIDED WITH THE INSTRUCTOR stating we have to always be open to knew scholarship. Everything I wanted to say to him got stuck in my throat. But I did leave saying this. So the real miracle is Jesus got a bunch of greedy Jews to share their food. Then he said Oooo! Don’t say that. And I said Why not? Isn’t that the intent of the interpretation? That no matter how you try to soften it, use natural reasoning, gently explain it, deny Jesus’ supernatural power(s) it still comes out Jesus got a bunch of stingy Jews to share their hidden food? I sent an email to our diocese bishop and now attend another parish.

 

[Supercatholic]

OH my my, Here we go again. Some psuedo scholar aka knucklehead comes along and does us a great favor by explaining away the miracles of the loaves and fish. I at one time many years ago fell for this garbage. I can go on in a very long disertation on this nonsense, but with six accounts in the gospels that would take too long. Here’s a quick summery. Two accounts Jesus says “I have great compassion on the crowd and they have nothing to eat” NOTHING TO EAT. This is Jesus talking here. Do the blasphemous interpreters expect me to believe Jesus was a moron and was totally clueless as to the custom of his own culture that “stingy jews” were hiding food? The Gospel of John is the only place that mentions the little boy with food. This is the one the nutcases use to substantiate their argument. Watch me crush that notion. It doesn’t mention it was his lunch. And there certainly is no mention of the boy’s generosity. For all we know the boy may have sold the bread and fish to the disciples. Afterall the emphasis was on (buying) food. When our semi retired religious educator gave us the “sharing junk” in an alleged pathetic bible study I protested. I said “So what you’re really saying is The Jewish people are so greedy it would take a MIRACLE to get them to share their hidden food and Jesus by his good example caused this sharing miracle to happen”. If that don’t beat all we even had a Jewish person in our class who was too stupid to realize she had just been insulted by that false teaching and sided with the instructor. Days later I went to complain of the poor catechises in our parish to the monsignor. And guess what. HE SIDED WITH THE INSTRUCTOR stating we have to always be open to new scholarship. Everything I wanted to say to him got stuck in my throat. But I did leave saying this. So the real miracle is Jesus got a bunch of greedy Jews to share their food. Then he said Oooo! Don’t say that. And I said Why not? Isn’t that the intent of the interpretation? That no matter how you try to soften it, use natural reasoning, gently explain it, deny Jesus’ supernatural power(s) it still comes out Jesus got a bunch of stingy Jews to share their hidden food? I sent an email to our diocese bishop and now attend another parish.

 

[smswife]

No, no, you’re all mistaken. It is a problem of translation.

Where we read Jesus saying, “Get them to recline”, what He really said was, “Get them to decline.”

(Sorry)

 

[edwest2]

I guess some experts have nothing better to do than to say, “No, he really meant this.” As opposed to a plain reading of the text. All interpretations of the Bible start with the literal. He knew the people had been with Him a long time and that they might feint as they returned home, so He gave them what they needed: FOOD.

Can someone just go to their Bible to the part where Jesus asks His disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” People certainly didn’t think He was just another teacher. If I was there, I certainly wouldn’t follow some guy around for most of the day unless I really thought there was something special about him.

The Catholic Church teaches that God made the Universe from nothing. And the Pharisees sure didn’t believe Jesus was God or equal to God. And they finally confronted Him and asked: “If you are the messiah, tell us plainly.” Jesus replied that they would not believe Him.

bible.cc/luke/22-67.htm

And further, Jesus told them to believe the works (His miracles) even if they didn’t believe his claim about Himself.

bible.cc/john/10-38.htm

The same God who made the Universe from nothing was the same God who multiplied the loaves and fishes.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Ben_F]

I wasn’t a Catholic during the 60’s. I was becoming one. I missed the Hippie type Catholics. I was in Guatemala. I read djeter’s link. It enlightened me. Did Jesus multiply the loaves? You betcha. Did the stingy Jews now share? Could have happened. How were the people transformed? Beats me. Was I transformed when I read the hippy Catholics writings? Yes. That’s all that counts. We all must admit that we have cultural prejudices. I do. Reading about the loaves transformed me and I wasn’t even hungry. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Marie5890]

Jesus’ “REAL” miracles, as oppose to His “FAKE” miracles.

Right. What-eva.

God is God. Son of God is still Son of God, capable of walking on water, calming the seas, and yes, multiplying fish and loaves enough to feed 5000.

It’s one of the those things that distinguishes God from the rest of us folks.