Interestingly enough, right after feeding about 15k people, these same people tried to make Jesus their king. I mean, free food right?
And the absolute Chad just went out and retreated, refusing to involve himself in politics as he was to be already king of another kingdom
Even more interesting than that, the next day, the same people were expecting to be fed again…he clearly understood people were associating with him for material gain. He does exhort them to work for their sustenance.
But it’s important to understand that at the time, Jesus was putting more focus on exhorting people to work on the pursuit of his father’s kingdom and excellent deeds, declaring himself the son of god, and himself (as the word of god) living bread to be fed on
At which point most of these people lost all interest, being shocked as, as always, they suffered of literal thinking, asking themselves in disgust, “how can we eat this man’s flesh?”. This was the people who literally wanted him as King the day before.
This was basically all it took for everyone except the 12 apostles to leave
Interesting take. There’s the standard conservative anti-welfare message, but also very old-fashioned anti-catholicism. I guess this is from a conservative US version of Protestantism. But which denomination exactly? Or is that standard fare for evangelicals these days?
It always comes down to transubstantiation versus consubstantiation.
-Lisa Simpson
I don’t think that the whole transubstantiation issue is big for Catholics, in practice. But they are supposed to believe that during mass, bread and wine literally turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Protestants have a slightly different take. Maybe it only becomes an issue in the context of the British domination of Ireland. I’m not sure, but at least in some Protestant/Anglican circles the Catholic belief was/is considered barbaric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Anglicanism
Maybe it’s derived from 19th century Anglicanism, when there were poor houses and Famine Roads?
Side note: As a neutral person (ie atheist), I find the retelling of the “feeding of the multitude” rather dubious. The anti-welfare message isn’t there. It’s a common conservative talking point in the US, that government welfare makes people dependent. The thing about eating Jesus is from elsewhere. It doesn’t belong in that story. The author adapted these pieces from the bible and made inserted their own teachings.
It’s funny how little connection there is between scripture and actual teachings. For abortion, they bothered to change the text.
Interestingly enough, right after feeding about 15k people, these same people tried to make Jesus their king. I mean, free food right?
And the absolute Chad just went out and retreated, refusing to involve himself in politics as he was to be already king of another kingdom
Even more interesting than that, the next day, the same people were expecting to be fed again…he clearly understood people were associating with him for material gain. He does exhort them to work for their sustenance.
But it’s important to understand that at the time, Jesus was putting more focus on exhorting people to work on the pursuit of his father’s kingdom and excellent deeds, declaring himself the son of god, and himself (as the word of god) living bread to be fed on
At which point most of these people lost all interest, being shocked as, as always, they suffered of literal thinking, asking themselves in disgust, “how can we eat this man’s flesh?”. This was the people who literally wanted him as King the day before.
This was basically all it took for everyone except the 12 apostles to leave
Interesting take. There’s the standard conservative anti-welfare message, but also very old-fashioned anti-catholicism. I guess this is from a conservative US version of Protestantism. But which denomination exactly? Or is that standard fare for evangelicals these days?
I’m not sure I see the anti-catholicism?
It always comes down to transubstantiation versus consubstantiation.
-Lisa Simpson
I don’t think that the whole transubstantiation issue is big for Catholics, in practice. But they are supposed to believe that during mass, bread and wine literally turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Protestants have a slightly different take. Maybe it only becomes an issue in the context of the British domination of Ireland. I’m not sure, but at least in some Protestant/Anglican circles the Catholic belief was/is considered barbaric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Anglicanism
Maybe it’s derived from 19th century Anglicanism, when there were poor houses and Famine Roads?
Side note: As a neutral person (ie atheist), I find the retelling of the “feeding of the multitude” rather dubious. The anti-welfare message isn’t there. It’s a common conservative talking point in the US, that government welfare makes people dependent. The thing about eating Jesus is from elsewhere. It doesn’t belong in that story. The author adapted these pieces from the bible and made inserted their own teachings.
It’s funny how little connection there is between scripture and actual teachings. For abortion, they bothered to change the text.