In Matthew 15:32-39, Jesus feeds 4000+ people for in v. 38 it says 4000 men who were fed that day, in addition to all the women and children. Perhaps it was more like 8000-12,000? Anyway, lots of people.
The story says that they had seven loaves of bread and a few small fish (v. 34).
How does this small amount feed so many people?
For those who believe in miracles, there are two possibilities: Jesus multiplied what was there so everyone had enough or people were somehow filled by only eating a small amount. For those who don't believe in miracles, the people supplied their own food by reaching into their own backpacks and started sharing because Jesus and the disciples started handing out food. For people who like a "spiritual" interpretation, they say this incident was like Holy Communion and what the people experienced was really a spiritual feeding with the bread representing Jesus.
How do you feel about the four explanations?
The problem with explanation number four is that the text doesn't demand that. Jesus hosted a passover (The Last Supper) just before his death where He explicitly says, "Take it (referring to bread) and eat it, for this is my body." (see Matthew 26:17-30).
As for explanation number three, Matthew 15:32 tells us, They have been here with me for three days, and they have nothing left to eat.
This seems to suggest that whatever food they may have brought along was already consumed.
Thus, only the two miraculous explanations seem to fit the story.
Of course, some skeptics will simply say, that Matthew erred in his recounting of the incident.
But if you assume the text is in error than making any interpretation of the text becomes a futile exercise for their is no core truth to understand. And, of course, if Jesus never performed ANY miracles why would an entire religion form around Him?
-
UPDATE: Wind farm greenlighted by Dept. of Interior . Really didn't know what tag to put on this item. Economics? Politics? Cultur...
-
Am looking at Matthew 13:31-32 tonight. Jesus again illustrated the Kingdom of Heaven with an agricultural image. The kingdom is like a tiny...
-
Am mesmerized by John Coltrane's jazzy version of My Favorite Things . Thus, it was natural to use that as a basis for planning my birt...
2 comments:
And, of course, if Jesus never performed ANY miracles why would an entire religion form around Him?
Simple. Like all leaders (even some of the incredibly lame leaders who claim to levitate or talk to the dead in this day and age that lacks the credulity of older times), legends grew up around him. This is so normal and obvious, for you not to recognize as a possibility, much less the most likely possibility, that I don't think you're being serious.
There were tons of people back then who had followers who believed they performed miracles. Do you believe they all performed miracles, or do you believes that stories were told about them that became legends?
Thanks for dropping by and taking the time to comment.
Indeed, you raise a fair point. Legends can grow up around famous people. And, as such, religions can grow up around such individuals and associated legends. For those who view religion as the creation of human minds, this would be a logical progression.
Thus, a fair question to raise is this: are the claims of Christianity legendary?
If so then Christian claims are fabrications, at worst or exaggerations, at best.
(1) How rapidly would legends accrue around Jesus?
We know that Christianity spread well beyond the named disciples and the various other followers of Jesus in fairly short order. These "first generation" believers would have actually known Jesus or knew people who knew Jesus. Some of these followers died from persecution due to their beliefs.
Therefore, if the legend hypothesis is correct, then these people would be the ones who began the accretion of the Christ legend AND be the very same people who died by persecution for that legend which they knew to be either false or exaggerated.
(2) What kind of evidence do we have in favor or against Jesus being a legend?
If the legend hypothesis is correct, we would expect there to be a body of literature of a non-legendary Jesus that pre-dates literature containing an expansive, legendary and essentially fictitious Jesus that collects on the non-legendary Jesus like barnacles on a ship.
The documents that comprise the New Testament we have in our hands are fairly close in time to the actual events they describe and no "non-legendary" documents pre-dating them have been found.
No doubt about it, Christianity has at its center a historical figure and historical acts: the Deeds of Christ, in particular, the Death on the Cross and the Resurrection from the Dead. These are rather exorbitant claims.
The cliche is "the bigger they are the harder they fall."
And St. Paul recognized this in his writing to the Corinthians (see 1 Cor. 15) by saying if the resurrection is not true then we have NOTHING and are pitiful.
Thus, we either take Jesus seriously or we dismiss the whole package.
Post a Comment