Talk:Feeding the multitude

Simpler explanations?

Am I the only one who think all this number mysticism and talk of tribes of Israel and such is a bit... over the top? There are a few explanations and motives that might seem much less distant, such as:

• The parable telling something about the afterlife, namely that there's no hunger in Heaven
• The idea that "what you have is good enough for Jesus" (the scarce supply of food being plenty to fulfil God's plan)
• The "yeast of the Pharisees" being their teachings, with Jesus merely underlining the point that he's talking metaphorically; when he could feed people with so little, why would he worry about the bread?

If nothing else, these should probably be discussed somewhere in the article. -80.202.212.112

What about the "bread is love" theory? See, share all the food around, and when you collect, you have than you begin with. It's like an extension of the ethic of reciprocity. --Switch 05:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There exists the implication that Jesus not only had mastery over the well known 3 dimensions in his walking on water with Saint Peter, but over other dimensions The Grand Design (book) suggested by Ezekiel's Merkabah wheel within a wheel or tesseract. That is to say Jesus could borrow bread from one of his other dimensions to feed his multitudes in the current dimension, but the borrowed bread had to be collected and returned im the baskets to the other dimensions or multiverse, so that the miracle could be repeated there. This particular miracle would demonstrate much more than a miracle of increase of food, making something of of nothing, but of a mastery of more than one universe, that only a king of heavens (in the plural and perhaps parallel sense), could perform. A most awesome miracle indeed. This is a humbling of our foolish generation living in a Flatland, by a superior, supreme, intelligent, multidimensional being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A statement of dubious veracity

"...the Torah, for example, was at that time considered only 1 book, and was not divided into 5 until later." This will be news to many of us. PiCo (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Some references have no inline citations. Therefore I added the cleanup template.Etineskid (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bible references are malfunctioning: "Matthew 14:13-21" is being interpreted as "Matthew 14:13-21:13". Should they be changed to Matthew 14:13–14:21; Mark 6:31–6:44; Luke 9:12–9:17; and John 6:1–6:14? Or is this just me?

Possible duplication bug?

First case of a documented duplication bug? --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The only miracle in all four gospels

That's what my pastor said this morning in his sermon.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Found it. Looks good.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I put it in its own paragraph in the lede because the source was only the source for that statement, although it might have been a source for the preceding sentence too. I didn't find an appropriate place below the lede.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Actual Scholarship

The two sources referenced in the Analysis section are a theologian and a priest, i.e. apologists. All these tales are proof of is that people write down tales. A literary critique applying a hermeneutic strategy is the only honest way to engage them. 2601:8C0:601:4CA0:355C:8DDE:1CAC:62A5 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)