Originally posted by Badwater No, Revelation does not speak of that. What you have done is to pull a single verse from scripture and use it to fit your context and not the passage's context.
NRSV Revelation 16: 12-16
The sixth angel poured his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up in order to prepare the way for the kings from the east. And I saw three f ...[text shortened]... in Hebrew is called Harmagedon.
Your attempt at interpretation here is fatally flawed.
And what have you said .. nothing unfortunately.
All you did is quote another translation which used the word 'sign' instead of 'miracle'. There are 3 passages in Revelation that talks about miracles or signs or wonders (call it what you like) done by Satan or AntiChrist.
Originally posted by Conrau K [b]The beauty of this and so many other NT stories is that there are many layers in what is going on, not just one bland pat answer.
Of course. And in my answer, I acknowledged a few readings. I noted the particular significance of the crowd, affirming Jesus as the prophet, and the importance of the bread, pointing to Jesus as the new source of salva ...[text shortened]... at all it is a miracle of the twelve.' Luke clearly sets this up as a miracle of Jesus.[/b]
Originally posted by Conrau K I disagree with your interpretation. Firstly, Jesus' blessing is not just some peripheral action. It completely affirms his agency in this miracle. He is the one who begs God, he is the one who breaks the bread and orders it to be distributed. In John's account, it is not even the disciples who distribute the bread: 'Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks, ...[text shortened]... are fed not because of the size of the bounty but because it is the bread of life.
I might also add that all the different miracles that Jesus performed were only a small preview of what he will do in the future. The miracles he did were to strengthen our faith in his abilities to accomplish that, fulfill prophesies that were foretold about him and show what he will later do for all on the earth.
Originally posted by Rajk999 And what have you said .. nothing unfortunately.
All you did is quote another translation which used the word 'sign' instead of 'miracle'. There are 3 passages in Revelation that talks about miracles or signs or wonders (call it what you like) done by Satan or AntiChrist.
Someday I'll get into just how out of whack your understanding of Revelation or miracles is, but not today. That will be a sermon for a different day.
Originally posted by galveston75 I might also add that all the different miracles that Jesus performed were only a small preview of what he will do in the future. The miracles he did were to strengthen our faith in his abilities to accomplish that, fulfill prophesies that were foretold about him and show what he will later do for all on the earth.
This is quite the presumption. You are waiting, just as millions have waited for centuries before you. I think the Gnostics had a better grasp of what the second coming of the Christ actually entailed.
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
18 Nov '09 03:24
Originally posted by TerrierJack OK - I'm prone to hyperbole. Not every religious figure has performed that particular act - but many have. Utnapishtim loaded an ark long before it was reported by the tribe of Israelites, Apollonius healed the sick, Muhammad ascended into heaven, Bacchus poured from an endless wine jug, and Gautama fed the multitudes. Nothing is new - not even our bottomless capacity for self-deception.
Well, I don't think Christians claim that Jesus is the sole miracle worker to ever exist. Healing the sick, ascending to heaven (you can also add the prophet Elijah), eternal wine and feeding the multitudes are not exactly surprising miracles. They represent what people want and they satisfy our deepest yearnings: to be healthy, to be close to the divine, to be happy and to be full.
Originally posted by Badwater That was the definition you were going to go by regardless; it was a foregone conclusion.
Your inability to see a different understanding and context from your own is to your detriment and no one else's. Understanding is not equivalent to agreeing or condoning. Your determination to not understand, in this context, belies your fears and your tunnel-vision, which is as great as the fundamentalist believers which you repeatedly berate.
I havn't seen any definition of yours, yet, but I'm still waiting.
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
18 Nov '09 05:521 edit
I think it is important to acknowledge some merit in badwater's exegesis. Firstly, the letovers fill twelve baskets. Is this is a coincidence or is this an allusion to the twelve apostles? Secondly, the distribition of food is later associated with ministry. In Luke 12:42, Jesus uses a parable which compares the responsibility of his disciples to 'the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute the food allowance at the proper time'. It also anticipates the later activities of his disciples who share bread as a sign of their Christian fraternity (the walk to Emmaus Luke 24:30 and Acts 2:42 where the meals are called 'the breaking of the bread.) Thirdly, Luke is very concerned to impart what true Christian discipleship entails. Several times he reminds his readers that it involves carrying the cross, leaving mother and father and abandoning wealth. This image of the apostles providing for the multitudes may then serve as a guide for how Christians should seek to address the needs of others. Finally, this passage is eschatological: it shows what the kingdom of God will be like. People will be equal, will share food together and be centered around God. The same image appears in the parable in Luke 14, where Jesus compares the kingdom of God to a banquet where the host invites the poor. This passage should not be interpreted exclusively as a miracle story; it has a strong message about Christian discipleship: breaking bread and sharing with others. It is a foreshadowing of the kingdom of God (which, after all, Jesus was lecturing on.) Badwater is right to place emphasis on the actions of the apostles.
What I dispute is that the miracles exclusively resides in the apostles. It doesn't. Luke wants to show that Jesus was a prophet. This scene leads to his acclamation as a prophet and shortly after as the Messiah. It is true that, in the Greek, there is emphasis on 'you' in Jesus' command: 'Give them some food yourselves.' It is a very strong 'You give them food'. However, this should not be interpreted, as badwater does, as a contrast between the disciples and Jesus, as if Jesus is telling them to perform a miracle rather than himself. It seems to be a contrast between the disciples and the farmers and villages (v 12) which would take their responsibility. Jesus is reminding his apostles that the multitudes are not the responsibility of impoverished and unfortunate farmers, but of the apostles themselves.
Originally posted by Conrau K I think it is important to acknowledge some merit in badwater's exegesis. Firstly, the letovers fill twelve baskets. Is this is a coincidence or is this an allusion to the twelve apostles? Secondly, the distribition of food is later associated with ministry. In Luke 12:42, Jesus uses a parable which compares the responsibility of his disciples to 'th ...[text shortened]... ponsibility of impoverished and unfortunate farmers, but of the apostles themselves.
Originally posted by Badwater Here we have a "miracle of Jesus" that, upon close inspection, turns out not to be. Of Jesus, that is.
The crowd has been with Jesus, it's getting late, and it's apparent to the disciples that there is a lot of hungry people there. Kudos to the twelve for their keen observation [/sarcasm]! They are portrayed as usual in the Gospels; they see a problem, s ...[text shortened]... not a miracle of Jesus; if it be a miracle at all it is a miracle of the twelve.
Originally posted by josephw It's a miracle you can even think.
Well, no, thinking is not a miracle. Again, your theology is lacking to the point of being sucked into its own vacuousness. A mental singularity, if you will.
If you wish to continue to trade personal attacks, josephw, go right ahead. I got a million of 'em.
Originally posted by Badwater Well, no, thinking is not a miracle. Again, your theology is lacking to the point of being sucked into its own vacuousness. A mental singularity, if you will.
If you wish to continue to trade personal attacks, josephw, go right ahead. I got a million of 'em.
Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand
17 Nov '09 22:59
Back to Top