The really BIG miracles of Jesus

Interbane · Sun Aug 15, 2010 9:39 pm


	Quote: So I think you're saying something everyone already knows, and agrees on, and calling it proof against the existence of God.

I'm very much against the word "proof". That our universe conforms to certain laws is compelling evidence against a personal god. However, a naturalistic deity is not ruled out as an agent that created those laws in the first place. They are two different definitions of "god".

Again, which do you think is more likely; that nature had veered off it's course, or that men fabricated the tale? We know that men certainly fabricate tales, and we also know that the laws of nature have remained constant across all contemporary scientific documentation.

Robert Tulip · Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:17 am

Kevin wrote:


	Robert Tulip wrote: I would be happy to analyse the texts line by line to test this claim.

I'm not following what you're talking about - but yes, go ahead.

Thanks Kevin. Of the six occurrences of the bread and fish miracle in the Gospels, the most interesting is at Mark 8


	Quote: 1 In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples unto him, and saith unto them, 2 I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat: 3 And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far. 4 And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness? 5 And he asked them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven. 6 And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. 7 And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. 8 So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. 9 And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away. 10 And straightway he entered into a ship with his disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha. 11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. 13 And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side. 14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. 15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. 16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. 17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? 19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. 20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. 21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?

After miraculously feeding 4000 men and their families, Jesus contradictorily tells the Pharisees that 'no sign shall be given to this generation'. If spontaneous generation of bread and fish for so many people is not a sign, I am not sure what is. Surely if he was quizzed as per this text, he could easily point to the sign he has just performed, and say 'you want a sign, here is a sign.' Jesus instead seems to say this apparent miracle was not a sign for this generation, implying that it must be something else. He then goes on to berate his disciples for their failure to see, hear, remember and understand what he is talking about. The implication is that the real meaning of his comments is a mystery, one he struggles to communicate.

Possible explanations are that the loaves and fishes miracle is a sign for a later generation, and that it is intended as a parable, a symbolic story that points to a deeper meaning. Its presence six times in the gospels suggests this miracle is central to Christianity, but we find the disturbing problem that Jesus tells his disciples it was not a sign and that they don't have a clue what it means.

In the midst of this public miracle that is not a sign, we find an abundance of precise cosmic images regarding the Age of Pisces. Loaves and fishes are symbols for the signs of Virgo and Pisces. Over the 2000 years since Christ, Easter Week has occurred when the sun is in the constellation of Pisces and the full Moon in the constellation of Virgo, by virtue of the link between Easter, the equinox, the moon and the precession. This planetary alignment at the rebirth of the year each spring marks the slow shift of the stars in a period known as the Great Year, the 25765 year long cycle caused by the wobble of the axis of the earth.

The symbol of Pisces is two fish, and a symbol of Virgo is bread. The miracle/parable says abundance can be created from meager resources, using symbols of the sun and moon at the resurrection as markers of the dawning age of Pisces-Virgo, the age of fishers of men and the holy virgin.

Mark's earlier version of the story at 6:41, says when Jesus "had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all." This specific mention of looking up to heaven, also present in Matthew's version, is suggestive of a cosmic meaning for the story. Jesus goes on to explain that what the disciples do not comprehend is why there are twelve and seven baskets of fragments from his two performances of the miracle. These numbers are main allegories for the twelve signs of the zodiac and the seven visible planets including sun and moon.

The most logical explanation for this story is that it is a cosmic allegory, describing a new spiritual power available from the spirit of the new cosmic age, symbolised by the signs of loaves and fishes moving past the cosmic axis of the equinoxes. As well as the core meaning of the signs of Pisces and Virgo, the two fishes symbolise the sun and moon, the five loaves are the visible planets, the 4000 or 5000 multitude are the visible stars, and the twelve baskets are the signs of the zodiac

We see here a prime example of the literary trope of encoding a secret message in an overt message, with the intention that the overt message, aimed for popular consumption, should protect and distribute the more important secret message. The overt message is that the story is a miracle. The secret message is that it is a cosmic parable describing messianic identity in terms of the slow wheeling of the heavens.

stahrwe · Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:33 am

Robert Tulip wrote:


	Kevin wrote: I'm talking here specifiacally of the instances where he is said to have fed congregations of 4000 and 5000. I was asked this question by a christian I was talking with and the only reply I had for him was "Good question, I'll get back to you. Your argument seems a reasonable one to me." Well here is the argument: Why weren't there accusations against the accuracy of these accounts that happened, supposedly, in front of so many people? IOW if I was to claim I fed 5000 people out of basically thin air it could be easily disproven. Why hasn't this happened with the Biblical accounts? 1) I'm not sure that there weren't contemporary attacks on the accuracy of the mass feedings. Does anyone here have any info regarding this? 2) I'm not sure how well-known the claims were or even when they actually originated. If they didn't originate until years after his death then obviously a valid suspicion of stated events is in order. If the claims were conteporary with the supposed events then how widespread was the message initially? IOW does it perhaps make sense for their to be no attacks on them even if the claims were presented in a timely manner?

This miracle appears five times in the Gospels, so is rather central to Christianity. The 5000 are the visible stars, the two fishes are the sun and moon, the five loaves are the five visible planets. Production of abundance from nothing signifies the cosmic movement of the equinoxes at the time of Christ into the signs of Virgo and Pisces, symbolised by bread and fish. Spica, the main star of Virgo, symbolises an ear of wheat. The September equinox point moved past Spica at the time of Christ. The first fish of Pisces is a line of stars across the zodiac that the March equinox point reached at the time of Christ.

Once again we suffer from the general ignorance of the Bible. Robert runs off on the meaning of the fish, that they are somehow related to the number of visible stars, and that the miracle is important to Christianity because it is mentioned five times. I must correct several misimpressions he leaves. First, the multiplying of food is one of many miracles which Jesus is reported to have performed. It has a parallel in the OT which I will leave to any curious to ferret out but as for being significant, assuming it is not sacreligious to do so, the feeding miracles would be rated rather low on the scale. I say miracles because there were actually two occasions when Jesus did this. Robert is all wrapped up in the feeding of the 5,000, but there was another instance when Jesus did the same thing and fed 4,000 people. One other problem that robert missed is that the Bible only counted the men. It says there were 5,000 men fed. The actual number of the crowd fed was much larger when the women and children were added. Based on that comparing the feeding of the 5,000 with the number of stars is totally bogus before we even get to the other miracle of the 4,000.

stahrwe · Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:41 am

Kevin wrote:


	johnson1010 wrote: What is the point in refuting arguments as thin as that, really?

Because I find it to be a good one. I suppose when it gets down to it that's the point. It's true that the "fact" of it occurring stretches credulity, when looked at from a purely secular viewpoint, but that's besides the point of whether or not there are contemporary accounts in support of or in denial of the stated event(s). Besides, when looked at from a POV of someone who does believe there is a Creator it actually makes sense that this being could do wonders with just a bit of food.


	Quote: Jesus could not possibly have fed 5000 people from just a little bit of food, so it didnt happen. Flat out. Just because something is written down somewhere does not mean it needs to be looked at and discussed seriously.

OK so how about this one: God could not have created the world from out of nothing, so it didn't happen. Flat out. Do you believe this is also an accurate statement?


	Quote: If Jesus the oily had really gathered crowds of 4 to 5000 people there is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever that he would have been mentioned perfusely in contemporary historical documents. Not just a vague mention of something that you could STRETCH to mean jesus, but a definite entry in history that did not originate from the document which invented him.

hrm... the oily? Anyway, didn't Josephus mention Jesus?

Kevin, Johnson1010 likes to call Him Jesus the oily only Johnson1010 uses a lowercase 'j'. He explained it to me one time but I don't remember the exact reason now. I think I pointed out that oil is generally associated with the Holy Spirit but again, not sure.

The claim of most here is that Josephus' mentions of Jesus are forgeries, fakes added later by Christians.

Also, most of the participants dismiss Genesis and the entire creation story as a myth.

stahrwe · Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:48 am


	Star Burst wrote: Had the forged passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew people such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have thrown it at their Jewish opponents. Forged passage did not exist. Origen who knew Josephus well expressed that he had not acknowledge Christ. Eusebius: Adovcated fraud in the interest of faith. Had been known to tamper with Josephus works and many other writers worls as well. He uses this passage in Evangelical Demonstration Book (3) page 124: "Certainly the attestions I have already produced concerning our saviour may be sufficent. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness." Passage interrupts the narrative. Has nothing to do with what precedes or follows it. Position of the text clearly shows that the text has been separated by a later hand to make room for it. Eusebius is the basis for all Christianity lies he even admits it....

This is the problem when you take what is posted on the anti-christian websites and just parrott it instead of going back to the original source. It is also a problem inherent in the internet. This type of misinformation about Eusebius gets posted and cross-referenced without checking. Once it is in cyber-space it is almost impossible to correct. I have posted citations from Eusebius before showing how Star Bursts parrotted assertions are not correct. Anyone interested in checking for themselves can google, 'did Eusebius really advocate lying' or something similar or, google Eusebius himself and read what he wrote.

In fact, let me challenge Star Burst to post the quotes from Eusebius he is relying on. Please include a citation to the original source material.

thank you.

stahrwe · Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: So I think you're saying something everyone already knows, and agrees on, and calling it proof against the existence of God.

I'm very much against the word "proof". That our universe conforms to certain laws is compelling evidence against a personal god. However, a naturalistic deity is not ruled out as an agent that created those laws in the first place. They are two different definitions of "god".

When I started the discussion, "Necessary Being" my main interest was in having an explanation, from a BT member not Dawkins, or Hitchins, et al, as to why a universe which conforms to certain laws leads to the conclusion that their is no God. Spell God with a little g if you want. Forget the Bible if you want. Why jump to the conclusion that there is not deity just because you think you can identify laws of nature?

[quote=Robert Tulip"]Again, which do you think is more likely; that nature had veered off it's course, or that men fabricated the tale? We know that men certainly fabricate tales, and we also know that the laws of nature have remained constant across all contemporary scientific documentation.[/quote]

Really? There is a law of thermodynamics that states that everything tends to move from a state of order to one of disorder yet evolution would seem to indicate the opposite happens.

stahrwe · Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:09 pm

Robert Tulip wrote:

Kevin wrote:


	Robert Tulip wrote: I would be happy to analyse the texts line by line to test this claim.

I'm not following what you're talking about - but yes, go ahead.

Thanks Kevin. Of the six occurrences of the bread and fish miracle in the Gospels, the most interesting is at Mark 8


	Quote: 1 In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples unto him, and saith unto them, 2 I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat: 3 And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far. 4 And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness? 5 And he asked them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven. 6 And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. 7 And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. 8 So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. 9 And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away. 10 And straightway he entered into a ship with his disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha. 11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. 13 And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side. 14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. 15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. 16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. 17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? 19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. 20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. 21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?

After miraculously feeding 4000 men and their families, Jesus contradictorily tells the Pharisees that 'no sign shall be given to this generation'. If spontaneous generation of bread and fish for so many people is not a sign, I am not sure what is. Surely if he was quizzed as per this text, he could easily point to the sign he has just performed, and say 'you want a sign, here is a sign.' Jesus instead seems to say this apparent miracle was not a sign for this generation, implying that it must be something else. He then goes on to berate his disciples for their failure to see, hear, remember and understand what he is talking about. The implication is that the real meaning of his comments is a mystery, one he struggles to communicate.

Robert;
First, the fish and loaves were not spontaneously generated, they were multiplied from the existing items.
Second, you claim to read the text but then pervert it. The verse you quoted reads:
"11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him."

Then you proceed to drop the most important word, 'heaven' and start referring to the fish and bread as a sign. Well, it wasn't a sign, it was a miracle. Who was it performed for? It benefited the people but we only see that the disciples were aware of it. Where did the miracle come from? Not heaven, it came from Jesus.


	robert tulip wrote: Possible explanations are that the loaves and fishes miracle is a sign for a later generation, and that it is intended as a parable, a symbolic story that points to a deeper meaning. Its presence six times in the gospels suggests this miracle is central to Christianity, but we find the disturbing problem that Jesus tells his disciples it was not a sign and that they don't have a clue what it means. In the midst of this public miracle that is not a sign, we find an abundance of precise cosmic images regarding the Age of Pisces. Loaves and fishes are symbols for the signs of Virgo and Pisces. Over the 2000 years since Christ, Easter Week has occurred when the sun is in the constellation of Pisces and the full Moon in the constellation of Virgo, by virtue of the link between Easter, the equinox, the moon and the precession. This planetary alignment at the rebirth of the year each spring marks the slow shift of the stars in a period known as the Great Year, the 25765 year long cycle caused by the wobble of the axis of the earth. The symbol of Pisces is two fish, and a symbol of Virgo is bread. The miracle/parable says abundance can be created from meager resources, using symbols of the sun and moon at the resurrection as markers of the dawning age of Pisces-Virgo, the age of fishers of men and the holy virgin. Mark's earlier version of the story at 6:41, says when Jesus "had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all." This specific mention of looking up to heaven, also present in Matthew's version, is suggestive of a cosmic meaning for the story. Jesus goes on to explain that what the disciples do not comprehend is why there are twelve and seven baskets of fragments from his two performances of the miracle. These numbers are main allegories for the twelve signs of the zodiac and the seven visible planets including sun and moon. The most logical explanation for this story is that it is a cosmic allegory, describing a new spiritual power available from the spirit of the new cosmic age, symbolised by the signs of loaves and fishes moving past the cosmic axis of the equinoxes. As well as the core meaning of the signs of Pisces and Virgo, the two fishes symbolise the sun and moon, the five loaves are the visible planets, the 4000 or 5000 multitude are the visible stars, and the twelve baskets are the signs of the zodiac We see here a prime example of the literary trope of encoding a secret message in an overt message, with the intention that the overt message, aimed for popular consumption, should protect and distribute the more important secret message. The overt message is that the story is a miracle. The secret message is that it is a cosmic parable describing messianic identity in terms of the slow wheeling of the heavens.

You are very confused.

Interbane · Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:59 pm


	Quote: Really? There is a law of thermodynamics that states that everything tends to move from a state of order to one of disorder yet evolution would seem to indicate the opposite happens.

The law of Thermodynamics doesn't change, only the phenomena it references changes. Evolution is a theory, not a law. The difference between a theory and a law is not one of "importance" or "certainty", but rather one of type.


	Quote: Why jump to the conclusion that there is not deity just because you think you can identify laws of nature?

I didn't say that. What I said was: "However, a naturalistic deity is not ruled out as an agent that created those laws in the first place."

Interbane · Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:04 pm

Your signature Stahrwe:

"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam known as the appeal to ignorance, an informal logical fallacy that asserts a proposition to be either true or false merely because it has not been proven or disproven. Carl Sagan criticized this practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity" and pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Did you change your beliefs? This is actually a rational signature! Unless you're unable to understand how it supports evolution yet does not support any religion.

stahrwe · Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:27 pm


	Interbane wrote: Your signature Stahrwe: "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam known as the appeal to ignorance, an informal logical fallacy that asserts a proposition to be either true or false merely because it has not been proven or disproven. Carl Sagan criticized this practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity" and pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Did you change your beliefs? This is actually a rational signature! Unless you're unable to understand how it supports evolution yet does not support any religion.

Are you saying that logical principles are limited in their applicability?

Are you saying that there is one standard of evidence for science and another for religion?

Interbane · Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:01 pm


	Quote: Are you saying that logical principles are limited in their applicability? Are you saying that there is one standard of evidence for science and another for religion?

No, I'm not saying nor implying those things. I will answer them, but I don't see how it has any bearing on your signature.

Logical principles are limited in where they apply. For example, quantum superposition.

The standards of evidence are the same for science and religion.

Azrael · Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:06 pm

He uses this one He uses this passage in Evangelical Demonstration Book (3) page 124:

Robert Tulip · Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:02 pm


	stahrwe wrote: Robert; First, the fish and loaves were not spontaneously generated, they were multiplied from the existing items. Second, you claim to read the text but then pervert it. The verse you quoted reads: "11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him." Then you proceed to drop the most important word, 'heaven' and start referring to the fish and bread as a sign. Well, it wasn't a sign, it was a miracle. Who was it performed for? It benefited the people but we only see that the disciples were aware of it. Where did the miracle come from? Not heaven, it came from Jesus. You are very confused.

The question here is how to compare rival explanations. Traditional Christians say that Jesus broke the laws of physics through enormous miracles which fed tens of thousands of people but somehow failed to get noticed in the historical record. I am simply trying to explain the text in a way that is compatible with modern rational observation. Traditional Christians have an emotional barrier about looking at the evidence regarding the cosmic story in the Bible because it is not compatible with their dogmatic beliefs. These dogmas are more about securing the secular power of the church than supporting genuine understanding and enquiry. My explanation of the loaves and fishes shows a possible and likely meaning in the bizarre dialogue in Mark 8 that I quoted above where Jesus despairs about why his disciples don't understand the numbers seven and twelve. The story is a parable for the cosmic redemption through the Great Year, not a historic record of events. If all the Bible is analysed through this lens it starts to make perfect sense, including the prediction of 'the end of the age' as applying to the cosmic framework of precession of the equinox.

stahrwe · Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:57 am

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: Are you saying that logical principles are limited in their applicability? Are you saying that there is one standard of evidence for science and another for religion?

No, I'm not saying nor implying those things. I will answer them, but I don't see how it has any bearing on your signature.

Logical principles are limited in where they apply. For example, quantum superposition.

The standards of evidence are the same for science and religion.

Isn't quantum superposition more of a probality issue than a logical one.

Anyway, if the same rules apply to science and religion is it not true that the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack for God as well?

stahrwe · Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:22 am

Robert Tulip wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: Robert; First, the fish and loaves were not spontaneously generated, they were multiplied from the existing items. Second, you claim to read the text but then pervert it. The verse you quoted reads: "11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him." Then you proceed to drop the most important word, 'heaven' and start referring to the fish and bread as a sign. Well, it wasn't a sign, it was a miracle. Who was it performed for? It benefited the people but we only see that the disciples were aware of it. Where did the miracle come from? Not heaven, it came from Jesus. You are very confused.

The question here is how to compare rival explanations. Traditional Christians say that Jesus broke the laws of physics through enormous miracles which fed tens of thousands of people but somehow failed to get noticed in the historical record. I am simply trying to explain the text in a way that is compatible with modern rational observation. Traditional Christians have an emotional barrier about looking at the evidence regarding the cosmic story in the Bible because it is not compatible with their dogmatic beliefs. These dogmas are more about securing the secular power of the church than supporting genuine understanding and enquiry. My explanation of the loaves and fishes shows a possible and likely meaning in the bizarre dialogue in Mark 8 that I quoted above where Jesus despairs about why his disciples don't understand the numbers seven and twelve. The story is a parable for the cosmic redemption through the Great Year, not a historic record of events. If all the Bible is analysed through this lens it starts to make perfect sense, including the prediction of 'the end of the age' as applying to the cosmic framework of precession of the equinox.

Nice try, but there are not rival explanations. There is what the Bible says, and then there is some far out attempt to read your philosophy into it. One problem with doing that is that it opens the text up to mean anything anyone wants it to say reducing it from even story status to meaningless prattle and confusion.

You have two problems which lead you to this confusion:

1) you refuse to believe that miracles are possible,
2) you are a victim of gnosticism (special, hidden or esoteric knowledge). It has a huge appeal because it elevates the gnostic above the rest of the rabble.

But as Sigmund once said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" and I am afraid that in this case there is obviously no hidden meaning.


	Quote: 13 And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side. 14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. 15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. 16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. 17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? 19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. 20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. 21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?

It is amazing that having just witnessed what Jesus did, they were still concerned because they were short of provisions. But that is human nature. We read about a providential event in someone's life and think that will never happen to us. Anyway, in case you missed it, here is the relevant part of Mark 8 again. It is bread, not stars or equinoxes or teacups in space or leprachauns, just bread.

Forum rules

The really BIG miracles of Jesus Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!