Loaves and Fishes

Originally posted by KellyWilson
For an interesting interpretation of the story of the Loaves and Fish, please check out my blog and join me in the discussion that takes place there...
http://kakistocrat.blogsome.com/

Loaves and fish is a myth.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why not ask a user like Whodey how much he's got from the forum?

I have developed some good friendships, some intense rivalries, had some interesting debates, and learned a lot of new things.

So, in a word, yes, I would say you are missing out on lots.

Well said.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Well said.

Not often I get to say this to you, we differ on many things, but Thank You!

You spelled "fish" wrongly.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Not often I get to say this to you, we differ on many things, but Thank You!

Well the guy was messing with us and calling us morons. Glad you put him in his place. 🙂

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why not ask a user like Whodey how much he's got from the forum?

I have developed some good friendships, some intense rivalries, had some interesting debates, and learned a lot of new things.

So, in a word, yes, I would say you are missing out on lots.

I have to jump in here and say I completely agree with scottishinnz
here. How is that for a change! 🙂
Kelly

Okay. No offense to the morons---I mean the people I referred to as morons. 🙂
I was more just speaking generally, and you can't tell me that there aren't people that highjack discussion.
So the basic premise for the post that appears at my blog is basically that, instead of Jesus producing food out of thin air, as those people passed that plate around of loaves and fishes, they each took out food that they had for themselves and began to share with each other. The theory is not atypical. Howver it is presented in a Book called 'Millions,' I provide the excerpt at my blog, and I was curious to think what readers thought about this, especially in light that nowhere do the Gospel authors state that Jesus produced food out of thin air...

I don't really see the importance of this as a discussion?

then don't contribute to it???

Originally posted by doodinthemood
I don't really see the importance of this as a discussion?

Really? Suppose that the miracles in the Bible could be given naturalistic explanations but that they still exemplified or manifested something of spiritual import. You don't think this result would itself be interesting and important?

Originally posted by KellyWilson
Okay. No offense to the morons---I mean the people I referred to as morons. 🙂
I was more just speaking generally, and you can't tell me that there aren't people that highjack discussion.
So the basic premise for the post that appears at my blog is basically that, instead of Jesus producing food out of thin air, as those people passed that plate around n light that nowhere do the Gospel authors state that Jesus produced food out of thin air...

The miracle of the loaves and the fishes was exactly that, a miracle; that which cannot be explained naturalistically. Proof: Mark 6:48-52, in the account of Jesus miraculously walking on the water we find that the disciples had every right to be "amazed in themselves beyond measure" when Christ fed the five thousand with five loaves and two fish.

"Now about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea, and would have passed them by. And when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed it was a ghost, and cried out; for they all saw Him and were troubled. But immediately He talked with them and said to them, “Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.” Then He went up into the boat to them, and the wind ceased. And they were greatly amazed in themselves beyond measure, and marveled. For they had not understood about the loaves, because their heart was hardened."

It is obvious that Christ is trying to get these guys to understand that He is exactly Who He claims to be, the Son of God, who has authority over all things. The disciples' hearts were too hardened to understand that which occurred right under their noses!

Originally posted by KellyWilson
the thread is intended to redirect interested readers to my blog, where they can take part in discussion without having the morons that have entered this thread present

In other words you want to have enough control over the discussion to be able to delete any posts that you find go against your views. I guess that is why you want a 'discussion' and not a 'debate'.

Originally posted by KellyWilson
So the basic premise for the post that appears at my blog is basically that, instead of Jesus producing food out of thin air, as those people passed that plate around of loaves and fishes, they each took out food that they had for themselves and began to share with each other. The theory is not atypical. Howver it is presented in a Book called 'Millions, ...[text shortened]... in light that nowhere do the Gospel authors state that Jesus produced food out of thin air...

It is not a new idea (I remember hearing it in a sermon as a child). It is an interesting concept but still begs many questions.
1. If God can perform miracles then why not? Why go for the whole naturalistic method?
2. If the real point of the story was not about showing off with a miracle then it has been rather lost on most people. Did God not expect that or was he only doing it for the benefit of the few enlightened ones such as yourself?
3. If you really want to say "giving=good, selfishness=bad" then why not say so instead of burying it in a complicated story? The truth is that the vast majority of people only ever 'get' a parable when they already agree with its teaching.


Why do you stop there? Why not go further and suggest that the event never really happened or happened rather differently than reported over fifty years later by a writer who was not a witness and whose writings are clearly biased and more intended to be a teaching tool than an historical account?

Originally posted by bbarr
Really? Suppose that the miracles in the Bible could be given naturalistic explanations but that they still exemplified or manifested something of spiritual import. You don't think this result would itself be interesting and important?

Not especially. You can take anything and say it's a metaphor for something else. The dictionary isn't a book of definitions, but is a satire, showing how everything in life has been ordered, and the reason why, the very core of the book, the word "money", showing the reason for this order.

But it's just contrived an unnecessary.

If it's your hobby to look for possible meanings in the bible, then go for it, but I wouldn't see it as an intellectually stimulating topic of conversation myself.