Understanding the Loaves and Fishes Miracles

[Theodred]

Alan wrote,

Why do some of us think that every miracle God performs has to be a big glorious deal, worthy of the finest stage magicians and more? Do we have God in such a box that we will not allow Him to work His miracles in men’s hearts with subtletly? As far as “believe the Bible or not” a reasonable person can read the Bible and from the text be left uncertain. It simply does not say what the mechanics are. Why do we assume that they have to fit any particular format? It is an interesting discussion and hypothesis that the “sharing” idea is out of line, but if insist that God must have said “alakazam” and done it in grand style and stake our faith on that fact, then we are presumptuous and perhaps a bit idolatrous of the graven image we have made of God

.It is more important that we don’t squeeze both God and Scripture into our own categories, which is exactly what the “sharing” interpretation does.

If the historical-critical method has done anything, it has drummed into us the importance of discovering what the authors of the Scriptures intended. How soon this particular piece of the historical-critical method is abandoned when its conclusions contradict the preconceived notions of heterodoxy.

What did the writers intend?

First of all the multiplication of the loaves is the only miracle recorded in all four Gospels. My Evangelical Protestant friends tell me that when something is repeated in the bible, it is very important. In this case, the multiplication of the loaves is repeated six times, and is in all four Gospels. It must be really important! Each account is formulaic. If the multiplication of the loaves took place in only the synoptic Gospels, then this formulaic structure could be accounted for by a shared source. However, the account also takes place in the Gospel of John, pointing to another common string.

The formula:

Mk 6:41 And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples to set before the people; and he divided the two fish among them all.

Mk 8:6 And he commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd.

Mt 14:19 taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.

Mt 15:36 he took the seven loaves and the fish, and having given thanks he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.

Lk 9:16 And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd.

Jn 6:11 Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.

This formula is exactly the same as the Eucharistic formula present in Scripture:

1 Cor 11:23-24 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said…

Mk 14:22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them…

Mt 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said…

Lk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them…

Obviously, the writers of the New Testament were drawing a parallel between the multiplication of the loaves and the Eucharist. In John’s Gospel the miracle is used to set the scene for the Bread of Life Discourse. The rejection of Jesus’ words in John’s Gospel at the end of the Bread of Life Discourse parallels very closely the rejection of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel that sandwiches the multiplication miracle. The first readers of these books would have readily recognized the terminology to indicate the Eucharist because they heard the same terminology at Mass. They saw the Eucharist as that which set them apart, the same as it is presented in the Gospels. The miracle of the multiplication of the loaves demonstrated the power of the Eucharist to feed us, just as the loaves were sufficient to feed the multitude.

If sharing has anything to do with the original intention of the Gospel writers, it would have involved the sharing of Communion

 

[Catholic_Dude]

First of all Allan, this was never directed at you. if you look at the order of the posts you will see i posted those comments right after a certain unnamed poster. if you go back and see what i am refering to you will understand why i blew up. now at the same time i did get carried away lumped people together, etc. and you pointed it out. i reread your first few posts and saw that you werent one of those guys dimistifying God and the Bible. the first post was well done and i guess i didnt pay attention at first. it is clear that you thought about possibilities without downgrading Christ.

also someone mentioned the Jesus Seminar/John Dominc Crossan. i didnt know they spoke specifically about the Loaves and Fishes, but i did make a thread about the group because what they said did bother me (stuff like Jesus was eaten off the Cross by dogs, and that the Apostles made up stories). these type of conclusions are unacceptable to me, and when i see stuff all around me that wants to secularize and denounce Christianity i come to places like CA for assistance.

no hard feelings?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Théodred:

If sharing has anything to do with the original intention of the Gospel writers, it would have involved the sharing of Communion

That’s an interesting point!
Catholic Dude:

no hard feelings?

Do you mean me? No hard feelings for me. I’m completely OK with any imaginary construct anyone wants to use to help envision the loaves and fishes miracle, or if anyone wants to avoid any such constructs.

What I am most interested in is the transforming effect of the Good News. I think people can learn lessons from looking at things from various hypothetical points of view and seeing what we can learn from it. Some prefer to adopt a particular image or explanation and renounce all others. That’s OK, too, as long as I have warned against renouncing other peoples’ beliefs and imaginations on matters of pure speculation.

If I was harsh or overly defensive I apologize. I know I have ideas that are far fetched for many peoples’ tastes, and sometimes I let them out without much warning.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

That last post must have been a thread-killer. The thread will obviously die now, as it should. I can predict the future, see?

Alan

 

[Philthy]

Catholic Dude:

there have been a lot of posts here that have helped me. but at the same time i am seeing a lot of this
" the miracle was not really a miracle, it was a community picnic " or “everybody shared”
this stuff really disturbs me. this is so disturbing i dont know where to start. here is my view of what this is saying:

1)the people who came with a lunch have no need for Jesus. (they were self sustaining.)

2)the people who didnt have a lunch (have nots) were less fortunate and had to rely on the “haves”. (the miracle is that everybody is a “have not”, only the power of Jesus can fix this.)

3)Jesus plays a passive role. he is no longer God, but a humanitarian. (one of the worst thing that happened in the world is when these “humanitarians” took on a secular role and threw out its very foundation, Christianity. that is why morals and faith are going in the dumps because people are becoming mainstream to the point where everything is relative and not based on Christ.)

Here, let me help you. All this speculation about what happened to the loaves is rediculous. The suggestion that the bread was already there and that it was just a question of people “sharing” does extreme violence to the text to say the least. What a bunch of doubting Thomas’.
Consider Christs first miracle in Canna - is there any ambiguity about what happened there? Water was turned into wine. Plain and simple - nobody poured wine into the water jars, the water BECAME wine. Naturally impossible, supernaturally possible and actual. Miracles are miracles - you cannot truly comprehend them as such without the reaction of “that’s impossible!” NO kidding, that’s what a miracle is…

Phil

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Philthy:

Here, let me help you. All this speculation about what happened to the loaves is rediculous. The suggestion that the bread was already there and that it was just a question of people “sharing” does extreme violence to the text to say the least. What a bunch of doubting Thomas’.
Consider Christs first miracle in Canna - is there any ambiguity about what happened there? Water was turned into wine. Plain and simple - nobody poured wine into the water jars, the water BECAME wine. Naturally impossible, supernaturally possible and actual. Miracles are miracles - you cannot truly comprehend them as such without the reaction of “that’s impossible!” NO kidding, that’s what a miracle is…

Phil

I take it you consider miracles of the heart less important than physically observable miracles? Why, then, when Jesus saw the lame man they lowered through the roof He did the best thing for him; forgave their sins. The people, of course, wanted a dog-and-pony show which Jesus obliged them by making the man walk, but He did it mostly for the show. What He was concerned about was that the man’s sins were forgiven; Jesus really didn’t care whether the guy walked or not in comparison, or he would have made the man walk before being cajoled by the crowd.

Besides, by your logic one has to ask, why did they have to put water in the jugs at all to change to wine? If Jesus can just pull stuff out of the air why didn’t He just say “alakazam” and the jugs would be full; why did he have to make the servant fill them with water? Was it because He was just getting used to His powers?

Alan

 

[sue_g]

Catholic Dude:

I’m going to add to your confusion.

Timothy Gray produced a series called, “The Gospel of Mark, The Way to Follow Jesus” (EWTN). In it he discusses the feeding of the 5000 as described in Mark 6:34. He points out (read it yourself!) that Jesus blessed the bread and the fish, then gave them to the disciples to do the handing out. So the crowd thinks the miracle is happening at the hands of the disciples. (The crowd was used to seeing the disciples out two-by-two, without Jesus around, driving out demons and curing the sick. Mark 6 7-12.)

Then Timothy Gray takes us to Mark 6:51 where Jesus had just walked on the water and the disciples were terrified at the site. “They were completely astounded. They had not understood the incident of the loaves. On the contrary, their hearts were hardened.”

I’m going to have to watch the series again to see how Mr. Gray explains that last part.

 

[dcdurel]

I am comfortable with imaginary construct also.
For I actually believe Jesus just hypnotized them, and they thought they were eating bread.
Or probably, He showed them a movie, and forgot about being hungery.

Or even more likely, He brought backward from the 20’th century rationalist scripure scholars who explained to the people that this was not a miracle they were experiencing, but they only wished to see a miracle and thus they thought they were seeing a miracle. In fact, these scholars then told the people that this Jesus was only an ordinary man, a good speaker, but that he was really nothing special. Then they told the people, that scripture scholars who accept rationalism (deny God exists, and thus deny miracles)
are the real experts and only they know what is really happening.
Thus, the people should quit listening to this Jesus and his nutsy followers and they should put their faith in scripture scholars who, ahead of time reject God and all miracles, thus they alone are worthy of believing.
And of course, since God and miracles don’t exist, there is nothing wrong with adultery, fornication, divorce (suicide of the family), abortion (murder of 1/3 of all babies before they are born), embryonic stem cell research, killing useless babies (Down’s syndrome etc, ) killing old people who are no longer useful, etc.

Yes, just think of how much the world will advance when we learn to reject God and miracles and put our faith in man himself.

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

Heres another miracle that happens, “LOVE” the more you give away the more you have, can anyone explain that to me ?

Jesus changed the water into wine, he healed the lame, he gave sight to the blind, he raised Lazarus from the dead.

Jesus cured a woman bleeding for years, and yes the multiplication of the loves and fish.

I believe totally that Jesus being the son of God, did multiply the loaves and fish, and for me it’s a miracle, no more and no less.

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

AlanFromWichita:

He did the best thing for him; forgave their sins. The people, of course, wanted a dog-and-pony show which Jesus obliged them by making the man walk, but He did it mostly for the show. What He was concerned about was that the man’s sins were forgiven; Jesus really didn’t care whether the guy walked or not in comparison, or he would have made the man walk before being cajoled by the crowd.

Alan

NO ! after Jesus said your sins are forgiven, to show that He had the power to forgive sins, told him to take up his bed.
That was the reason Jesus said your sins are forgiven first.
If Jesus didn’t care if the man walked or not, then He would have left it at that.
Jesus knew what He was doing, and also knew that this would eventually have them wanting His blood on the cross, and they did.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

dcdurel:

Yes, just think of how much the world will advance when we learn to reject God and miracles and put our faith in man himself.

Dear dcdurel,

Are you, too, then saying that miracles can only happen if they are glitzy? You don’t believe that a miracle of the heart (unobserved) is just as important as those that are for show?

How, then do you explain Jesus healing the paralytic by forgiving his sins, but then throwing in making the paralytic walk just for show? The real healing that Jesus cared about did not appear to be a miracle to the onlookers because they watched with worldly eyes. Do you think they got the point? Probably not; and I’m not so sure we do today. He healed the man to show that He has the authority to forgive sins, on the assumption that the worldly men thought making a man walk was easier than forgiving sins.

Back to the loaves and fished, the text said he blessed and broke the bread, they handed it out, and there was food for all with leftovers. It doesn’t say exactly how it happened. To presume it was either a glitzy “Mary Poppins” sort of magic trick-ish show, which seems to be what you are advocating, is an opinion, not a fact. Therefore sarcasm is not a very effective way of defending it. Am I claiming there was no observable miracle? No, but if it was a miracle of the heart, and there was unanticipated sharing, it would not detract from God as you seem to imply.

After all, looking back at the silly people watching the healing of the paralytic, we know better than them, don’t we? We know that the important miracle, the one which Christ came to give us, was NOT to make the man walk but to forgive his sins. Again, making the man walk was just for show. Do you have a sarcastic response to the contrary? Will you now say that the forgiveness of the sins was not really a miracle because it didn’t create a show like making the man walk – or that I am devaluing the miracle of making him walk because I’m equating him to the “non-miracle” of forgiveness?

It would seem that to force God into making every miracle an observable one takes out 99.999% of the work He does through nuances and through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Lord, I pray that you open their eyes that they may see Your true glory.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Stephen-Maguire:

NO ! after Jesus said your sins are forgiven, to show that He had the power to forgive sins, told him to take up his bed.
That was the reason Jesus said your sins are forgiven first.
If Jesus didn’t care if the man walked or not, then He would have left it at that.
Jesus knew what He was doing, and also knew that this would eventually have them wanting His blood on the cross, and they did.

If Jesus did care whether the man walked or not, then why did he need a reason other than compassion to heal him?

As you stated, His point in healing the man was ostensibly to prove His authority, not to act out of compassion. The forgiveness was out of compassion, is my guess. He may also have been acting out of compassion to heal him, but again He relegated it to a lower priority than the more important miracle of forgiveness.

Turning it around the other way, that Jesus was moved with compassion to heal the man but, seeing an opportunity to make a point, first “forgave” the man specifically to set up His next magic trick to be more convincing, seems like grandstanding and exploitation. Of course, I may be wrong because I don’t know the mind of God. I pity those who believe they do.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Stephen-Maguire:

I believe totally that Jesus being the son of God, did multiply the loaves and fish, and for me it’s a miracle, no more and no less.

It’s perfectly OK for you to believe that.

My point is that if it was a miracle of the heart, such as getting people who said they had nothing to repent, exercise their faith and share, that does not diminish the magnitude of the miracle, compared to a scenario where somehow a new fish would “boink” into the bottom of their baskets every time they reached in after one.

We don’t know how it actually happened. We just know that the people were fed. Why do I get the feeling that there has to be a certain amount of “Hollywood” involved before we regard it as a true miracle? More troubling is the notion that we look down on those who think they have a possible “logical” explanation, as if it is less of a miracle if it isn’t flashy enough.

It isn’t like the priest was saying there was no miracle at all if the people “merely” shared. He just got a slightly different lesson out of the miracle. It isn’t about taking away whatever images anyone wants to apply to the situation. It’s about presumptuousness that somehow the way we see things that are not clearly shown is right and alternative explanations are wrong.

You know, this actually brings up another point. The Bible doesn’t claim the feedings were miraculous. Perhaps we should have called it the “loaves and fishes story” rather than “loaves and fishes miracle.” When we go around trying to stick a “miracle” or “not a miracle” label on everything, are we diminishing the everyday miracles of life, birth, and healing that God performs?

Alan

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

AlanFromWichita:

If Jesus did care whether the man walked or not, then why did he need a reason other than compassion to heal him?

As you stated, His point in healing the man was ostensibly to prove His authority, not to act out of compassion. The forgiveness was out of compassion, is my guess. He may also have been acting out of compassion to heal him, but again He relegated it to a lower priority than the more important miracle of forgiveness.

Turning it around the other way, that Jesus was moved with compassion to heal the man but, seeing an opportunity to make a point, first “forgave” the man specifically to set up His next magic trick to be more convincing, seems like grandstanding and exploitation. Of course, I may be wrong because I don’t know the mind of God. I pity those who believe they do.

Alan

The point being is, if Jesus forgave his sins and left it at that, the crowd would surley have laughed.
But to forgive someones sins, and then say arise and walk, was a physicial thing in a world seeking physicial signs.
Obviously being a supernatural thing, no-one could see if the mans sins were forgiven or not.
We need a sign post, and the sign post was arise and walk.
Sorry if your having trouble with this Alan, but thats the way I see it.

Matt:

9:2 And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: “Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.”

9:3 And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth.

9:4 And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: "Why do you think evil in your hearts?

9:5 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?

9:6 “But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,” (then said he to the man sick of palsy,) “Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.” 9:7 And he arose, and went into his house.

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

AlanFromWichita:

It isn’t like the priest was saying there was no miracle at all if the people “merely” shared. He just got a slightly different lesson out of the miracle. It isn’t about taking away whatever images anyone wants to apply to the situation. It’s about presumptuousness that somehow the way we see things that are not clearly shown is right and alternative explanations are wrong.

Alan

Anyway it’s like Transubstantiation, as a Catholic I believe I’m receiving the body and blood of Jesus.
Isn’t it amazing that non-Catholics believe in the loaves and fish, and all the other miracles in the Bible, but don’t believe in that. (picky)
Anyway Alan, not a lot more to be said on the subject, apart if a Priest preaches sharing, then I for one wont be listening to him.
He’s deminishing the power of God, ironic or what, some of these same preachers say God created the world out of nothing, but have a problem with Christ multiplying a few loaves & fish.

Anyway have a nice day, and God Bless.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear Stephen-Maguire,

I don’t have any problem with the way you are describing the lame man walking. It seems we are in agreement there for the most part. Although you think there is nothing more to be said, however, you last post indicates that you must have missed my point about the miraculousness of sharing or presumptuousness, or that you relegated it to insignificance. I’ll try to be as accurate as I can in pointing it out.

Stephen-Maguire:

Anyway it’s like Transubstantiation, as a Catholic I believe I’m receiving the body and blood of Jesus.
Isn’t it amazing that non-Catholics believe in the loaves and fish, and all the other miracles in the Bible, but don’t believe in that. (picky)
Anyway Alan, not a lot more to be said on the subject, apart if a Priest preaches sharing, then I for one wont be listening to him.

OK, so far so good. I’m with you on that, and I fully support your right not to listen to explanations that are different than your own. I also have no desire to change what you believe about the loaves and fish, for you interpretion isn’t hurting anyone, so far…

He’s deminishing the power of God, ironic or what, some of these same preachers say God created the world out of nothing, but have a problem with Christ multiplying a few loaves & fish.

There. Right there. This is the problem I’m having. You don’t have to listen to him, but I claim you do not have enough information about them or about the actual miracle to make this indictment. You’re saying if they don’t see that it happened your way, then they are diminishing the power of God. That is the part I claim is presumptuous. Do you see my point now?

You don’t know how the loaves and fishes really happened, and you don’t know that priests who offer this as a possible worldly description “have a problem” with multiplying loaves and fishes.

Anyway have a nice day, and God Bless.

And I wish the same for you.

Alan

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

AlanFromWichita:

There. Right there. This is the problem I’m having. You don’t have to listen to him, but I claim you do not have enough information about them or about the actual miracle to make this indictment. You’re saying if they don’t see that it happened your way, then they are diminishing the power of God. That is the part I claim is presumptuous. Do you see my point now?

Alan

I do see your point, but I have enough faith in the son of God to believe that he done it.
Some do, some don’t.
Well about the information needed to prove this, the apostles were there, and they were eye witnesse’s.
Remember what Jesus said about faith the size of a mustard seed.
And it rediclious to say that the people had food already on them, Jesus saw that they where hungry.
If they were hungry, would they not have eaten the food they had up their jumper (sorry had to get that one in).

Believing that Jesus was able to forgive the mans sins is supernatural, (the lame man)
Believing that Jesus could feed was it 5,000 people with so little is supernatural.
Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead or did He not ?
Wasn’t his body already decomposing, IE; they said that it was smelling ?
Did Jesus die on the cross, and was raised to life 3 days later ?
We have eye witness’es, but I’m sure if the apostles even witnessed the loaves and fish they still had a hard time believing what they saw.
Thomas refused to believe until he had seen and touched, Jesus said “you only believe because you have seen, blessed are they that believe and have not seen”.
So belief is a gift from God, and I do understand your dilema, millions have the same problem.
But I believe in the loaves and fish, some don’t, but that’s something that maybe they should pray about, so that the Holy Spirit should enlighten them.

 

[Strider]

AlanFromWichita:

We don’t know how it actually happened. We just know that the people were fed. Why do I get the feeling that there has to be a certain amount of “Hollywood” involved before we regard it as a true miracle? More troubling is the notion that we look down on those who think they have a possible “logical” explanation, as if it is less of a miracle if it isn’t flashy enough.
It’s about presumptuousness that somehow the way we see things that are not clearly shown is right and alternative explanations are wrong.Alan

Alan,
It’s not that a miracle of Jesus’ has to be “flashy,” but for the “silly” people standing around watching, it had to be, well, a miracle.
It is not out of the context of this discussion to ask why Jesus performed miracles in the first place.
I’ll join the story kind of in the middle. You all know it, anyway.
Jn 11:24 Martha said to him, “I know that he [Lazarus] will rise again in the resurrestion at the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.”
32 Then Mary, when she came to where Jesus was and saw him, fell at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled; 34 and he said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus wept
40 Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?" 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 I know that thou hearest me always, but I have said this on account of the people standing by, that they may beleive that thou hast sent me." 43 When he had said this, he cried in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and face wrapped with cloth. Jesus said to them, Unbind him and let him go.”
So you can see from Jesus’ own prayer to his Father that he performed the miracle ( I haven’t heard any alternative interprations of the raising of a man four days dead) “that they may believe.”
Jesus knows he must do “Hollywood” miracles so the Jews will see and believe, and he wants them to believe.
Sharing bread that you already have isn’t a miracle. A little old-fashioned shame will produce that. It’s not that it’s not flashy enough, it simply is not a miracle.
But feeding 15,000 to 20,000 people with five loaves, ah, that’s a miracle! People can see and believe.
And I don’t believe it’s presumptuous to criticize people who deny a true miracle of Christ and replace it with the statement about his speaking ability.
One more thing. It wasn’t that the people wanted to see a “dog–and-pony show,” but it’s what Jesus knew he needed to do to make beleivers of them.
He couldn’t just walk up and say, “Hi, my name’s Jesus and I’m the Son of God, you know, the Messiah. How’s things?”
Before you can have miracles of the heart, you need belief or, dare I call it, faith. Jesus performed the miracles you degrade as “Hollywood,” and “glitzy,” for a reason. “That they may believe.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Strider:

It’s not that a miracle of Jesus’ has to be “flashy,” but for the “silly” people standing around watching, it had to be, well, a miracle.

OK, let’s follow this line of reasoning a bit…

So you can see from Jesus’ own prayer to his Father that he performed the miracle ( I haven’t heard any alternative interprations of the raising of a man four days dead) “that they may believe.”
Jesus knows he must do “Hollywood” miracles so the Jews will see and believe, and he wants them to believe.

OK, then this follows as well…

Sharing bread that you already have isn’t a miracle. A little old-fashioned shame will produce that. It’s not that it’s not flashy enough, it simply is not a miracle.
But feeding 15,000 to 20,000 people with five loaves, ah, that’s a miracle! People can see and believe.

Here is where it gets interesting. I understand what you mean, if you allow me a bit of liberty with your punctuation thus:
“But feeding 15,000 to 20,000 people with five loaves, ah, that’s a miracle people can see and believe.”

As it is, you seem to reject that attitude conversions brought about by a demonstration of faith (more effective than shame IMO) are actually miracles. I guess you could say that miracles are only miracles if they are able to be seen by men, but I doubt that is what you’re claiming.

And I don’t believe it’s presumptuous to criticize people who deny a true miracle of Christ and replace it with the statement about his speaking ability.

The presumption to which I refer is that you have filled in the blanks that the Scripture doesn’t with an image compatible with your beliefs, and are rejecting a contrary interpretation. You can think what you want but to claim it as the truth is indeed a presumption.

Besides, when you get right down to it, who said it was supposed to be a miracle? The Bible never says anything about the feeding of the crowds being a miracle. It says they had a few fish and loaves, then thousands ate, and there were leftovers. At least with the sermon on the mound, not normally considered a miracle, the Bible says the people were “astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.” (Matt 7:28-29) Not so with the loaves and fish. Nothing about people being amazed, and we don’t normally regard the sermon on the mount as a miracle.

But here, because they at first thought they did not have enough to eat, we read into it that it was a bona fide miracle, and one that is publicly observable. This is pure speculation. Reasonable speculation to be sure, but no less speculation.

One more thing. It wasn’t that the people wanted to see a “dog–and-pony show,” but it’s what Jesus knew he needed to do to make beleivers of them.
He couldn’t just walk up and say, “Hi, my name’s Jesus and I’m the Son of God, you know, the Messiah. How’s things?”
Before you can have miracles of the heart, you need belief or, dare I call it, faith. Jesus performed the miracles you degrade as “Hollywood,” and “glitzy,” for a reason. “That they may believe.”

I have no argument with all that. We just have no tangible evidence that this reasoning even applies to the loaves and fishes. He already had the peoples’ attention.

It’s based on this. There is a fact that will never be known. You espouse theory A, while I have heard priests I respect, including one on EWTN recently, either espouse or at least acknowledge the possibility of theory B. If we leave it at that, we’re OK. There is no rule that says our thoughts and ideas have to be clones of each other. To think that either theory A or B is correct to the exclusion of all others, and further to impugn those who hold alternative views in the face of zero evidence to break the tie, is narrow minded thinking.

One other thing; when I use terms like “Hollywood” and “glitzy” I may sound like I’m exaggerating the point, but I’m only trying to make the point. Though I am fully aware that they are loaded words, the baggage with which they are loaded is not mine. I like a lot of “glitzy” things, so I don’t consider calling something “Hollywood” or “glitzy” as a degradation, just as a description to contrast it with miracles that are more subtle.

Alan

 

[Strider]

AlanFromWichita:

The presumption to which I refer is that you have filled in the blanks that the Scripture doesn’t with an image compatible with your beliefs, and are rejecting a contrary interpretation. You can think what you want but to claim it as the truth is indeed a presumption.

Not so with the loaves and fish. Nothing about people being amazed, and we don’t normally regard the sermon on the mount as a miracle.

But here, because they at first thought they did not have enough to eat, we read into it that it was a bona fide miracle, and one that is publicly observable. This is pure speculation. Reasonable speculation to be sure, but no less speculation.
To think that either theory A or B is correct to the exclusion of all others, and further to impugn those who hold alternative views in the face of zero evidence to break the tie, is narrow minded thinking.Alan

Okay, let’s take a look at the actual Scripture and see what we have.
John 6:5 Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?”

Why wouod they habe to buy bread if the people were hoarding their own? Surely Jesus would’ve known.

6 This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do (A foreshadowing, but of what?)
7Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii would not buy enough for each of them to get a little.” 8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, 9 “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish.; but what are they amoing so many?” 10 Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.”…11 Jesus then took the loaves,. and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated so also the fish, as much as they wanted. 12 And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.” 13 So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets from the barley loaves left by those who had eaten.

You say there were no comments by the people. No, but there is from Scripture. Jn 6:15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by foirce to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the hills by himself.
Continued