Question for you

[Izdaari Eristikon]

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.

Agreed. It doesn't actually say so, but I interpret it that way because it seems more plausible to me, more consistent with how Jesus does things in the rest of the story.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

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?

I'd say Jesus' resurrection was a greater miracle because with him, there wasn't another living person to call him forth, as Jesus did with Lazarus. It was sort of a 'self-resurrection', something completely unheard of.

What's a miracle? How's this for a working definition? --

A supernatural intervention into the normal working of things, a temporary suspension of the natural laws of the universe. Raising the dead would certainly qualify, as would walking on water. Those things just don't happen, unless a supernatural power makes them happen. Of course some things we call miracles may not be that, but if so it would be using the term too loosely.

If it's stage magic, a hallucination or merely a very lucky coincidence in our favor, it's not really a miracle. Although some of those lucky coincidences blur the line... would it really have happened by pure chance? Maybe God does have a hand in some of those.

 

[St_Worm2]

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

Just tongue-in-cheek Chaos (although I have to admit that if I was ever offered the chance to induldge in the kind and quality of food that theory #2 was suggesting, my tongue would probably be the only thing hitt'n the inside of my cheek ... ).

Perhaps the biggest problem with theory #2 is that there is simply no hint from the four Gospel accounts that this is what the Lord intended to convey to us. It's simply a theory posited by people who have an interest in proving their own agenda (in this case, that there is nothing supernatural going on in the Bible), not in finding a true and proper exegesis. A Gnostic or a Deist would be in favor of such an interpretation, I would think.

And while I agree that the Lord did not describe in exact detail the "mechanics" of this particular miracle, He left little to ponder about how and what happened to the loaves and the fishes in the general sense (which is why theory #1, the "orthodox", if you will, interpretation of the text, has what would be termed universal acceptance in Christendom). Here are a couple of thoughts about part of St. John's account:

Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks, He distributed to those who were seated; likewise also of the fish as much as they wanted. When the were filled, He said to His disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be lost.” So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. John 6:10-13


​

As I said, there's no hint of any "sharing" going on here, just Jesus and the disciples 'distributing' from 5 loaves and 2 fishes to this massive group. Notice also that after all had eaten their fill of the bread and of the fish, Jesus instructed his disciples to gather up the leftovers ... specifically ... from the five original barley loaves He received from the "lad" earlier that day. Somehow these five loaves fed what is estimated to be 15-20,000 people (that's including women & children) with leftovers to boot.

Perhaps theory #3 should be about some kind of irradiated yeast that has been lost over the centuries that just kept the bread growing and growing ... of course there would still be the problem with the abundance fresh fish that day, wouldn't there! Oh well......................

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.

You're a Christian (and apparently a very intelligent one from what I can tell), so I really didn't think theory #2 was going to be what you actually believed, but I do appreciate you pointing it out to me. I always benefit from knowing what others think, as long as their theories are at least somewhat plausible. It causes me to reevaluate that which I have come to believe, and often from an angle I would have never considered.

I think what you will find with this miracle though is that with a fairly careful and realistic look, the four Gospel accounts taken together will rule out any other interpretation than the one that I have dubbed "orthodox".


Yours and His,
David