Question for you

[MI6]

Hi,
Why would a Christian not believe that Jesus performed miracles?

 

[crishmael]

They would probably not believe he performed miracles if they did not believe he was divine.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Hi,
Why would a Christian not believe that Jesus performed miracles?

It doesn't make sense to me that a Christian wouldn't. My definition of Christian (as per Romans 10:9-10) involves believing in the resurrection, the greatest miracle of all. And if you can believe that, why wouldn't you believe in the lesser miracles?

 

[MI6]

They would probably not believe he performed miracles if they did not believe he was divine.

I met one man who was an Emergent and he did not believe Jesus performed miracles, and he also did not believe Jesus was divine.

But the other man believed Jesus was divine; he was catholic. Yet he did not think Jesus multiplied the bread and fish. And I dont understand why it is so hard to believe that happened.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I met one man who was an Emergent and he did not believe Jesus performed miracles, and he also did not believe Jesus was divine.

But the other man believed Jesus was divine; he was catholic. Yet he did not think Jesus multiplied the bread and fish. And I dont understand why it is so hard to believe that happened.

I wouldn't take the one Emergent fellow as representative of all. It's an ongoing conversation with very diverse participants, representing a wide range of opinion. I'm part of it too, but I believe all of Jesus' miracles really happened.

The same is true of Catholicism: it contains a wide range of opinion, some of it approved by the Vatican, some not. But this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly attests to both the reality and the importance of miracles, and especially Jesus' miracles, in Catholic theology.

Why is it so hard for some to believe in them? I don't know. As I said, if you believe in the resurrection, the other miracles are much smaller.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I don't know who it was that said, "I don't believe in miracles. I rely on them." But I, too, find I must rely on them.

Then again, I'm one who believes that everyday occurances, such as the birth of a child, are miracles too. And just because it can be explained in the natural, doesn't mean it's NOT a miracle. For example, someone develops cancer, undergoes chemotherapy and surgery and everything else involved in medical treatment, and recovers. I would call this a miracle. God is still at the helm, directing everything.

 

[AdamClarke]

I'm not sure how one could not believe in Jesus's miracles and still consider themselves a Christian due to the fact it appears one must believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Then I continue to wonder if one accepts that miracle, admittedly the most outstanding, why they wouldn't believe in the lesser miracles? But hey I wonder about a lot of things.

 

[chaoschristian]

But the other man believed Jesus was divine; he was catholic. Yet he did not think Jesus multiplied the bread and fish. And I dont understand why it is so hard to believe that happened.

Look at the actual text and show me where it says that Jesus multiplied the bread and the fish.

 

[chaoschristian]

Of course this conversation got rolling and the term 'miracle' was never defined. Maybe its time to take a look at that.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Look at the actual text and show me where it says that Jesus multiplied the bread and the fish.

Hmm, you're right, it doesn't actually say that. But it does say that starting with a paltry few loaves and fishes, probably not even enough to feed Jesus and the Twelve, an enormous crowd was fed, and there were plenty of leftovers. That still sounds pretty miraculous to me!

 

[chaoschristian]

Hmm, you're right, it doesn't actually say that. But it does say that starting with a paltry few loaves and fishes, probably not even enough to feed Jesus and the Twelve, an enormous crowd was fed, and there were plenty of leftovers. That still sounds pretty miraculous to me!

Indeed. There was a miracle. But the miracle isn't stated as 'Jesus multiplied the bread and fish.' That's one possible interpretation and theory of what transpired. But it is not the definitive response to what happened.

What happened was that the multitude was fed. The mechanics of how it happened is left as mystery.

But if we're going to talk about miracles, then let's talk with precision.

 

[St_Worm2]

Indeed. There was a miracle. But the miracle isn't stated as 'Jesus multiplied the bread and fish.' That's one possible interpretation and theory of what transpired. But it is not the definitive response to what happened.

What happened was that the multitude was fed. The mechanics of how it happened is left as mystery.

But if we're going to talk about miracles, then let's talk with precision.

Hi CC, I'm interested, outside of the orthodox belief that Jesus multiplied the bread and the fish to feed the 5000, what other theories or interpretations have been put forth to explain this miracle

Yours and His,
David

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I'm curious too. How could 5,000 men, besides women and children, be fed to overabundance on what they had, if Christ did not multiply the food?

 

[chaoschristian]

Hi CC, I'm interested, outside of the orthodox belief that Jesus multiplied the bread and the fish to feed the 5000, what other theories or interpretations have been put forth to explain this miracle

Yours and His,
David

Your first mistake is in calling it 'orthodox belief.'

The interpretation that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes is traditional. It is not orthodox belief.

I am not aware of any mainstream sect of Christianity that holds that that particular interpretation is part of orthodox belief.

One other theory, for example, is that the miracle was is to be found in 'sharing.' That Jesus blessed the food and God blessed the people so that when the food began to be passed out among them they willingly gave up what they already had on them, that the miracle was one that was expressed and experienced on a communal level.

Again though, that's just an interpretation. There's nothing in the actual text that tells us one way or the other.

 

[chaoschristian]

I'm curious too. How could 5,000 men, besides women and children, be fed to overabundance on what they had, if Christ did not multiply the food?

Here's a question in response: does it matter?

 

[St_Worm2]

Your first mistake is in calling it 'orthodox belief.' The interpretation that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes is traditional. It is not orthodox belief. I am not aware of any mainstream sect of Christianity that holds that that particular interpretation is part of orthodox belief.

Yes, you've got me there However, when I use the term "orthodox", I generally mean it in the broader sense of the definition (IOW, of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved), and the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes would certainly be considered 'orthodox' in that sense, yes?

One other theory, for example, is that the miracle was is to be found in 'sharing.' That Jesus blessed the food and God blessed the people so that when the food began to be passed out among them they willingly gave up what they already had on them, that the miracle was one that was expressed and experienced on a communal level. Again though, that's just an interpretation. There's nothing in the actual text that tells us one way or the other.

So the "miracle" (according to let's say, theory #2) was Jesus getting a bunch of greedy so-and-sos to cough up the spoiled fish and the stale bread they'd been hiding under their robes all day long and 'share' it with the folks next to them who weren't pack'n. Hmmm, well, as they say, ANYTHING is possible, but .........................................YUCK *

*Actually, I've got a couple of other comments to make, but I'll have to catch up with you about those tomorrow ... after I get the word picture of theory #2 out of my head!!

--David

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

So the "miracle" (according to let's say, theory #2) was Jesus getting a bunch of greedy so-and-sos to cough up the spoiled fish and the stale bread they'd been hiding under their robes all day long and 'share' it with the folks next to them who weren't pack'n. Hmmm, well, as they say, ANYTHING is possible, but .........................................YUCK *

*Actually, I've got a couple of other comments to make, but I'll have to catch up with you about those tomorrow ... after I get the word picture of theory #2 out of my head!!

--David

Theory #2 doesn't seem more plausible to me than Theory #1. And since I believe in the resurrection, a much greater miracle, I can see no reason to a priori reject lesser miracles, such as Jesus actually multiplying the loaves and fishes.

 

[chaoschristian]

You are free to interpret the passage as meaning that 'Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes' so long as you are aware that you are interpreting that into the text.

My primary concern, right now, is to be precise about the miracles in questions so that we may talk about them in an informed, intelligent manner and be aware of any 'scripts' we may be overlaying upon the actual text.

A miracle happened in the feeding. That much we know. How it came about, that much we don't know.

 

[chaoschristian]

Yes, you've got me there However, when I use the term "orthodox", I generally mean it in the broader sense of the definition (IOW, of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved), and the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes would certainly be considered 'orthodox' in that sense, yes?

Acknowledged. I tend to err on being overly precise when it comes to the language of theology discussions.

So the "miracle" (according to let's say, theory #2) was Jesus getting a bunch of greedy so-and-sos to cough up the spoiled fish and the stale bread they'd been hiding under their robes all day long and 'share' it with the folks next to them who weren't pack'n. Hmmm, well, as they say, ANYTHING is possible, but .........................................

YUCK

*

*Actually, I've got a couple of other comments to make, but I'll have to catch up with you about those tomorrow ... after I get the word picture of theory #2 out of my head!!

--David

Interesting how you chose to characterize that theory in your description.

As I said, it's one possible alternative theory to explaining the how of the miracle. It's not necessarily one to which I subscribe.

I look forward to your future comments.

 

[chaoschristian]

Theory #2 doesn't seem more plausible to me than Theory #1. And since I believe in the resurrection, a much greater miracle, I can see no reason to a priori reject lesser miracles, such as Jesus actually multiplying the loaves and fishes.

Interesting that you characterize the Resurrection as a much greater miracle.

How is it much greater as a miracle in and of itself?

Surely its import is greater on our lives, but remember that Lazarus was raised from the dead and I believe, iirc, he was dead far longer than three days. And at least in the case of the resurrection there was something to work with (the body of Jesus). The traditional interpretation of the feeding is really a 'something from nothing' deal.

Which really gets us back to a question I had asked earlier: how do we define the term miracle?