Feeding 5000 With 2 Fish And 5 Loaves...

[Aloysius]

one wouldn't necessarily have expected such an event to be "recorded in history" as if there is some stenographer taking account.  most of what has ever happened in history is not recorded in written form in history, most of history is filled with accounts of what the rich and powerful were up to at the time.  hence most of the history at that time is about the Roman Empire, even Jewish historians would've talked relating to Roman Empire political realities.  the only time we find events going on among the average common folk is usually when someone writes down some religious story about it, so it's totally expected that the only mention of such an event is in the gospels.  now, that doesn't solve the issue of whether it happened or not, but your reasoning for why you think it didn't happen is moot, because if it did happen that way, it's unlikely that anyone except someone writing a religious text like the gospels would have ever written it down.  unfortunately, nobody had twitter back then.

 

as to whether you have to believe it as part of your Divine and Catholic faith, I believe there's a quote in Dei Verbum specifically affirming (as the Church always has) that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels are absolutely matters of faith that they happened.  You can, of course, twist things because our doctrine of the inerrancy of the scriptures basically say that they are inerrant in what the author intended them to say, so when some kooky theologian comes out and tries to say that the gospel is making a point about how nice it is to share you might conceivably get away with thinking something like that.  a less kooky approach for someone who just definitively didn't want to believe that it happened that way could go some route of seeing the number 5000 as having been symbolic; personally, I believe there's a good reason to believe that the number given in Acts for Pentecost day may have been symbolic of all the Churches around the area at the time (in good semetic literary style they'd have been placing them all at the historic event, like if someone wrote something today placing a billion people at the foot of the cross)... but I don't think there's any legitimate argument in the numbers direction regarding the loaves and fishes thing, but I'd be more amenable to a numbers question than reducing it to some ridiculous metaphor for sharing.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

ultimately I think following Dei Verbum and the tradition of the Church, it's pretty clear that we believe that it was definitely a miraculous occurrence.  but the faith is not a history test, though incarnational theology certainly means that we place some paramount importance on real miraculous historical events (particularly the incarnation and resurrection being the most important parts of that), so I think if you entertain some questions like "I wonder if it happened exactly that way" or whatever for some particular miracle in the New or Old Testaments, that's certainly not something placing you outside of the Church or anything so dramatic as that.  but it is the faith of the Church that Jesus performed the miracles described in the New Testament, and I don't think there's any reason to trvially doubt something like the loaves and fishes miracle.  I mean, we believe He rose from the dead, called Lazarus from the tomb, walked on water, changed water into wine, I see no reason to believe in that context that he couldn't have done the loaves and fishes thing.  what's great about the loaves and fishes miracle is the shroud of mystery hanging over the mechanics of it... surely the Apostles would have noticed what was going on while distributing the food, the miracle was such that it was able to be done basically without noticing (at least that's how I imagine it, I don't think they looked down into the basket and saw some wormhole into the loaves and fishes dimension, I think they put their faith in Our Lord because of their faith were able to walk around handing it out without even realizing or doubting that defiance of the laws of physics, like walking on water)

Edited March 9, 2013 by Aloysius

[havok579257]

Me not believing the stories literaly in the old testement, does that put me outside of the Church ? Or that I don't take the stories and verses that present God in a hateful way in the old testetment literaly, put me outside of the Church ?

 

 

Not believing the feeding the many with loves and fish does put you outside of what the church believes.  This was a literal event.  This was not a parable.  Jesus did perform miricales.  I mean really, how hard is it to feed this many people when you brought people back from the dead, which also by the way was literal and not a parable.  Jesus did really raise people from dead.  So I figure if you can believe that, the feeding the many people is easy to believe.

[EmilyAnn]

Me not believing the stories literaly in the old testement, does that put me outside of the Church ? Or that I don't take the stories and verses that present God in a hateful way in the old testetment literaly, put me outside of the Church ?

The Old Testament is not a story book and as a Catholic I don't think it's acceptable to view it that way. I think you need to find a good, solid Old Testament study. I am sure people here can recommend something to you. 

[Guest]

So you believe Jonas was in a whale ? You believe God ordered women and children to be killed and raped ? I'm sorry but I don't. Although I guess I can see how those stories tied in with the new testement can come together in some crazy way to form a more postive then negative effect in the end....I think.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Guest

[Laudate_Dominum]

Whatever Aloysius just said.

[reyb]

To Anyone,

 

 

Please excuse me Mr. Delivery Boy. I just want to clarify something regarding this issue.

 

Suppose this ‘miraculous feeding for multitudes of people’ is truly a literal event (Please see John 6:10-12).

My question is this: What kind of food Jesus gave to them (with this miracle)? Is it a kind of food that spoils? Or is it a kind of food that gives eternal life?

 

Because in John 6:26-27 it is written,  â€˜Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

 

So, again what kind of food Jesus gave to these multitude of people? Is it a kind of  â€˜food for the stomach’ or Is it a kind of 'food that gives eternal life'?

 

Who is that 'Son of Man' who will give 'food that endures to eternal life' if Jesus' miraculous food will give a mere 'food for the stomach'?

 

Edited March 9, 2013 by reyb

[Guest]

Aloysius...Peace bro...Hope you are well...Thank you for your replies...Great stuff as always and gives me more to think about...I guess where I'm at with all this is if this stuff really did happen it had to be on a much smaller scale...And that's fine with me because it doesn't change how great the miracle/miracles are...The huge problem I see though is when these stories are so big and unbelievable that they become a problem for someone with reason and logic. And I'm not saying that reason and logic should trump faith...Although when you read some of these stories about the miracles and they are on a such huge scale and said to be witnessed by so many people it can plant a seed of doubt in a persons mind with reason and logic...So then that person says well I wonder if this really happened...So they look back at history and they find out Jesus can hardly be found except in the Gospels...So now even more doubt sets in...Because it becomes extremely difficult for one to believe that miracles on such a huge scale would not be recored anywhere except in the Gospels...And we have 2 writers in Josephus and Philo Judaeus who wrote specificaly about these type of things and lived in the time of Jesus and in the area...So a conclusion that makes sense for them not writing or hearing about it or taking it seriously is if it happened on a much smaller scale...Or some things were added to make the story sound better when told to future people...Sorta just like when Josephus words get added to in the 4th century to make it seem as if he calls Jesus the Christ and other things...I do realise this is a slippery slope to go down because then like Socrates said where do you draw the line ? Is it possible when Jesus came back with saints he only appeared to a small number instead of thousands ? Because one would think again if it happened to this extent surely you are going to hear about it in writings other then the Gospels...

Edited March 9, 2013 by Guest

[Era Might]

dboy, send me your email.

 

IMO, the question is not whether the miracles were real or not, but whether you believe or not. There are all kinds of intellectual structures you can build to support or deny whether something like the miracles were "historical facts." But remember that the Gospel is not philosophy.

 

 

See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

 

--Colossians 2:8

 

Believe simply, and not like the wise, or else don't believe at all.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2013 by Era Might

[Guest]

I read what you wrote again Alosyius...Good stuff...Also that was one of my theories that the crowd didn't realise what was really happening...Does the Bible say anywhere that the crowd was aware of the miracle ?

Edited March 9, 2013 by Guest

[Evangetholic]

Holy Church does not regard Her Sacred Texts as a collection of fables. It is a mistake in my opinion to try to resolve doubts (and I'm out of my depth here, because I've never had serious doubts) by seeking intellectually pleasing explanations of hard sayings. Jesus Christ is a person. He is a person who loves you DB and who wishes to live with you for an eternity. He will not be able to have this desire of His fulfilled if you apostasize from the faith--formally or by allowing your faith to wither away. If you doubt, then I'm willing to bet the real locus of your doubt is centered on the person of Christ, not on Scripture, and not even on the Church. If you want to know who He is and know it with a certitude, then ask Him.

 

He is faithful.

He is just.

And He'll hear and answer you.

 

[Guest]

Evan peace brother...I have always had a strong unbroken faith in God ( The Creator) since I can remember...My whole life...I have never once been atheist or agnostic to a loving creator...I will (for my own disgraced self) attempt to disagree with you on the part where you say my my problem isn't with scrioture but the person of Christ...When these doubts come on it is way more to do with scripture then Christ...My problem seems to become with not being able to explain some scripture or sometimes defend (old testement) them when asked by someone else or my own lame wondering self sitting alone in my apartment...It makes it even tougher when I go to atheist sites and read their presentation on the Bible and history...And attempt on my part to read them from an objective standpoint...When the conflict starts its not a conflict of wether I believe in God (The Creator) or not...The conflict becomes wether I believe and stand behind everything that's contained in Scripture and Christianity...And the answer is I do I'm just struggling...Like Era Might says it probably is best to believe simply or to not believe at all...But for some reasom some part of me pleads that it doesn't have to be an all or nothing like that...But yet mabey it does...

Edited March 9, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

I will even take it a step further and say I've experienced miracles and believe God has reached out and shown me He's real...I've experienced that love and from how it happened to what was happening in my life at the time these things happened I attribute it to the Christian God...So I guess I have to do as Era Might said and just believe simply...As tough as that is to do...

Edited March 9, 2013 by Guest

[Evangetholic]

You never have to go it alone with scripture. You have, if you  are in a state of grace, the Holy Spirit living in your soul and sanctifying grace "welling up unto eternal life." You have access to the God who created the Universe and to the Human Authors of the various books as well. And you have the Magisterium of the Church.

 

You can get lost in God's imagined unkindness in some sections of the Old Testament (the radical acts needed to get the attention of an entire nation), or you can remember that God doesn't by right owe us anything. We have inherited separation and the inclination to evil from Adam, still He died for us, still He bears with us.

 

You can get lost in Jonah spending three days in whale's belly or you can remember that the primary point of that story is to point to Christ (the Church tends to read Her Book typologically). Jonah had to be battered and cajoled to do God's will, but the Father had with Him another who would come and do His Will without having to be battered. Jonah's three days in the whale are metaphor for our Lord's three days in the tomb. The awful gentile prophet, compared to the Hebrew  Lord who would willingly lay down His life to save even gentiles.

 

You can get lost in whether there were 5000 people or 80. Or you can remember that God has the power and the desire to feed His people. :)

 

You can be swayed by atheists, modernists, and people who "have made a shipwreck of their faith." Or you can remember that you are a foot soldier engaged in war to save your eternal soul and those of others, that you have real enemy, who is the Father of Lies, who tempted Christ Himself, and who'd love nothing more than to receive your soul at your death and to sideline you in the war for men's souls right now.

 

Either way, I'll pray for you DB.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I hereby invoke modern biblical scholarship. Not to be Captain Obvious, but the bible is a collection of writings reflecting different times, cultures, and literary genres. Naive literalism is not a requirement of Catholic orthodoxy, and in fact there are Church documents that encourage biblical criticism. It's certainly possible to acknowledge that some stories are probably not historically accurate (e.g., Bel and the Dragon) without being condemned to the infamy of heresy. You aren't required to believe things that are unreasonable. The idea is that the fundamental claims of Christianity are reasonable and defensible. My understanding is that the Catholic Church rejects fideism (e.g., Fides et Ratio, the Catechism).