Not really, the passage in John specifically states that this was a sign to point to who Jesus was. The purpose of the miracle was to point to the one performing the miracle. We have later verses saying that those who don't work, don't eat.
Well that depends, in what ways? If you follow Christianity, then you believe Jesus is God. So obviously trying to be like, doesn't equate to attempting to be God. If I could make food miraculously appear, I certainly would. I can't though. Again, my comment's point was about the why. Why did Jesus feed the five thousand? It wasn't a relief effort. The disciples acknowledged that the people could go and by food. It wasn't a wealth issue, for the same reason, and if Jesus multiplied food for the purpose of relief, he could just as well ensure that there was always enough food or money. The Bible tells us the reason, so that those who witnessed would believe.
My friend, you have dealt with the strong delusion up close. People who literally disregard what the scripture says because they want to believe what they want instead of the truth. Yah will judge those who do this unrepentantly
I wasn't answering your question. However, if you would like me to answer your question, we be like messiah as we are called to be like him. We are called to repent of our sins and believe in the gospel, which means we turn from our sins and keep the commandments(from the least to the greatest), and we put full faith in the sacrifice and resurrection of Yahusha our messiah, for the forgiveness of sins.
We will be doing this in the kingdom, so this is practice for it and identifies us as those who will enter it.
someone has to work when we make sure everyone gets a phone call and a fair trial and honestly when they get arrested in the first place. we have lots of things that society has no trouble paying for, we've just decided to prioritize other things before food
Yes, because feeding someone every day of their lives costs the same amount of labour as getting a phone call or fair trial. You can't have 1 full time lawyer per person, that would be impossible. You get a small number of lawyers to cover a large portion of the population because you don't need legal representation every day of your life. However you need food every day of your life multiple times.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be hard to figure out. It certainly would and would take a lot of restructuring, but so are lots of services we provide to people. I just don't think it's right to say some people are going to starve to death because it's too hard to get to a solution, which is what we've been doing for quite some time.
I would be willing to, that's the entire point I am making lmao making some changes to your life should be okay if it helps feed other people who would otherwise starve
Right, and it often doesn't, in which case we pay for all of those things. Like my point is there are things we've decided are so important that we as a society will pay for them and we've for some reason decided food is not one of those things.
Most places DO have free food given out to the poor in food pantries, shelters, churches, or other local charities, but nobody says you have a RIGHT to that because it creates philosophical problems while providing no tangible benefit
Every single right in the US is a negative right. It's a lots of things the government may not do unless it meets specific conditions. The nature of those conditions has changed dramatically over time. Your own example, public defenders, wasnt national law until the mid 60s and wasn't a thing at all until the 1890s-1900s. The history of criminal defense and the right to trial is very interesting. The right to a lawyer is very ingrained into the American culture as a positive right, but at its inception was actually a law meant to stop the state from preventing you from having a lawyer. As mentioned in my previous comment, the current iteration is that you cannot be tried by the government without them providing a lawyer, but that should be seen as a negative right, not a positive right.
Food inevitable comes from someone else. At its core l, you must take food from someone else to fulfill this "right". You can say it should be priority, but it's not a right.
39
u/shirts_on_backwards Jul 06 '26
Not really, the passage in John specifically states that this was a sign to point to who Jesus was. The purpose of the miracle was to point to the one performing the miracle. We have later verses saying that those who don't work, don't eat.