Featured The Gospel of Mark successfully reconciles 2 different versions of the Miracle of Loaves and Fishes

[Scooter]

even though as a good-hearted agnostic, I think it’s most likely that neither miracle of loaves & fishes actually happened

Actually, a good hearted atheist would claim this miracle did not happen. A good hearted agnostic would say the miracle may have happen or it may not have happened, there's just no way to know.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

A good hearted agnostic would say the miracle may have happen or it may not have happened, there's just no way to know

I’ll go with that.

And I’ll personally keep in mind that it’s more important to focus on the here and now.

• feed the hungry

• shoe the shoeless

• rebuild the American middle class

• let jobs keep their meaning, rather than trying to “inject” meaning into jobs

• have First Aid classes quicker and more readily available. This is part of living more positive energy and robust lives

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

If these two events are being taught as one event, you need another Sunday school teacher. I don't know anyone who teaches this as being one miracle.

But don’t Christians sometimes say The Miracle of the Bread and Fishes, “The” singular, as if there’s just one miracle?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

But on this thread, I’ll include a different version or two for you. I think most Bible versions are pretty accurate, although with the paraphrased versions you have to be little careful.

You're free to choose which ever your preferred versions of course. I think the NIV is the easiest to read, not sure if it's the most accurate.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Actually, a good hearted atheist would claim this miracle did not happen. A good hearted agnostic would say the miracle may have happen or it may not have happened, there's just no way to know.

I'm open to accepting such miracles from a historical standpoint. If there was multiple attestation for a mundane event, and it would be accepted as history, then I'd be open to accepting supernatural stories based on the same level of evidence. Of course, I would not accept it on scientific grounds unless there was empirical evidence involved, like observation, testing, etc. In a sense, that's why I like the resurrection account. It wasn't just someone's subjective experience or what someone believed, but it was an event that could be witnessed by multiple independent people.

Relevant discussion:

Featured Thread 'Why do historians reject the supernatural?'

Nov 18, 2023

I've been having a lot of discussions lately on the resurrection. One thing that I'm not understanding is why do historians reject stories involving the supernatural, especially if they are well documented.

For debate:
1. Why are all accounts of the supernatural rejected by historians?
2. Are historians justified in that approach?
3. If not, then what evidence or historical criteria should be used to label the resurrection as fact? If multiple attestation alone make something a historical fact, shouldn't that same standard apply to supernatural accounts?

• AgnosticBoy
• Replies: 9
• Forum: Christianity (section 2)

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

I think the NIV is the easiest to read, not sure if it's the most accurate

I understand that the objection of evangelical Christians to the NIV is that it tries too hard to include both men and women.

For example, the word we translate as “brethren” in English is actually more neutral between men and women in the original Greek or Aramaic. [ I don’t know which of these two languages this particular part of the New Testament is ]

But evangelicals claim is that other parts of the NIV try too hard to be neutral, I think. I mean, it’s hard to fairly summarize someone else’s position.

 

[Scooter]

I understand that the objection of evangelical Christians to the NIV is that it tries too hard to include both men and women.

As an evangelical I can say I do not oppose the NIV because it includes both men and women. The KJV includes men and women. I do not like the NIV for it's translation of several verses including Matt.18:11, Acts 8:37 and Isaiah 14:12. The NIV also causes confusion concerning the killing of Goliath.

 

[Scooter]

But don’t Christians sometimes say The Miracle of the Bread and Fishes, “The” singular, as if there’s just one miracle?

Typically we say "the feeding of the multitude". Regardless of what man calls it, they are two separate events with differing circumstances.

And I’ll personally keep in mind that it’s more important to focus on the here and now.

The here and now is important, but the here and now is temporary. The hereafter is more important to me because it is eternal.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

If there was multiple attestation for a mundane event, and it would be accepted as history, then I'd be open to accepting supernatural stories based on the same level of evidence.

I respectfully disagree. I guess I have a sliding scale. The more “way out” the event, the more evidence I want.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

In a sense, that's why I like the resurrection account. It wasn't just someone's subjective experience or what someone believed, but it was an event that could be witnessed by multiple independent people.

Well, Paul’s the earliest writing, maybe 50 AD for the earliest letters. And the unjust execution of Jesus by Romans was maybe 33 AD.

1 Corinthians 15, the beginning of this chapter, claim 500 saw Jesus some time after Resurrection. But gives nothing else, not even a location where this was supposed to happen.

And most Christian scholars say “Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John” are just the tradition names, because the earliest manuscripts of these Gospels don’t have these names.