“Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat? ...” (John 6:5-12)


Why did Jesus ask Philip where to buy bread?

Jesus said this to his students because he knew the people in the crowd were hungry. They only had five loaves of barley bread and two small fish to feed the people. What did they do?


Why would God bother making sure the people were all fed? The immediate purpose was not just to make sure the people ate. But also to keep the crowd there so they could hear Jesus' teachings.

Then of course was the purpose for most of Jesus' miracles: To illustrate that God was empowering Jesus in his activities to teach us about the Supreme Being.

What does 'giving thanks' mean?



Many have interpreted this to mean that Jesus simply thanked God for the food, as many sectarian teachers teach. This is because they do not understand the confidential loving relationship that Jesus had with God.


Is this about the ancient practice of offering?



Why would Jesus abandon this practice?

Are we to believe that Jesus abandoned the ancient practice of making offerings to God? Are we to believe that Jesus made up his own ritual - of "giving thanks" instead of making an offering?

Certainly, Jesus accepted the teachings of the Prophets - as he quoted them repeatedly. He also preached in the Temple "every day" according to his testimony before the High Priest. And he was repeated called "rabbi" by followers and non-followers alike.

Certainly, Jesus practiced making offerings, as David did. As Samuel did. As Isaiah did. As Abraham did. As Moses did.

Jesus also specifically instructed his students to make offerings:

Why did sectarian institutions abandon making offerings?

Why have so many modern sectarian institutions been ignoring what Jesus taught and practiced? Why did the Bible translators call it "giving thanks" instead of "making an offering? 

And why do they not make offerings to God? 

The primary reason is because Paul - who did not directly hear Jesus' teachings and yet enlisted followers after years of persecuting Christians - began teaching a new doctrine loosely based on the life of Jesus.

The problem is that Paul's doctrine - now called the Pauline theology by scholars - abandoned the foundation of Jesus' teachings. That foundation was the teachings and principles of the Prophets that Jesus passed on to his followers. 

Paul declared that in order to enlist "pagans" - later termed "gentiles" - the Christian doctrine must be softened to allow those that didn't want to follow the teachings of the Prophets - which included the commandments of Moses, and the instructions and activities of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, and others, including John the Baptist and Jesus' own disciples.

Yes, Paul argued against the teachings of Jesus' own disciples, including James and Peter. He was known to have argued these teachings even in public, in front of large crowds.

Well, despite the fact that Paul's doctrine (Pauline theology) contradicted Jesus' own teachings and the teachings of his closest disciples, that theology ended up being embraced by the Romans when they stepped in to marshal Christianity and further push the theology away from Jesus' own teachings and principles.

Side note: Who were the 'gentiles' or 'pagans' that Paul fought to be able to enlist? The word 'gentiles' (from the Greek word ἔθνος defined as 'pagans' in Thayer's lexicon) were considered by Jesus to be atheists - those who did not accept the superiority of God. Most of these 'pagans' or 'gentiles' of Jesus' time were those who followed the Roman pantheon. In other words, they were worshipers of many gods, not unlike the Greeks.

So they did not accept the Supreme Being. They did not accept monotheism, which is why Jesus said he did not come to teach them. He came to teach those who accepted the existence of a Supreme Being.

We must note that the Roman 'pagans' also believed the "son of the gods" was Caesar. So it wasn't hard to teach them the concept of Jesus being the "Son of God" - in line with the Roman Emperor.

The problem is that according to scholars, Paul effectively replaced the principles taught by Jesus with a new doctrine based on becoming saved by virtue of Jesus' dying on the cross.

Despite having never been taught by Jesus, this new philosophy could easily be maintained by Roman pagans, many of whom continued making offerings to the gods under the Roman pantheon.

When the Roman government stepped in to marshal Christianity, which doctrine did they embrace? Did they embrace the pure doctrine of Jesus' teachings, which embraced the teachings of John the Baptist, David, Abraham, Moses, and Joshua?

No. It embraced Paul's version. Why? Because Paul's theology had won more converts throughout the Roman Empre than did Jesus' disciples like James, Peter, Thomas, John and Mary. 

Why? Because again, Paul's doctrine was easier. Jesus' teachings required having a change of heart, and a seeking of love for God - and activities that pleased God. What saves us according to Jesus' teachings is love for God.

Once embracing the Pauline theology, the Roman Empire and its Roman Catholic Church effectively whitewashed the theology of Jesus and his disciples. They erased the ritual of making offerings to God at the altar, replacing this with eating crackers and wine at communion (calling these Jesus' body and blood).

The Romans erased the practices of Jesus' teachings by controlling worship for over 1,000 years. The Romans banned Christianity for nearly 300 years, before Constantine graciously declared (Pauline) Christianity legal in 313. Before then, any sort of Christian activity was considered punishable by imprisonment or death.

After it was made legal, it was still considered heretical to practice anything other than the Pauline doctrine effected by the Roman Catholic Church. Doing so risked being burnt at the stake as a heretic.

In other to effect this, the Roman Catholic church - propped up by the Roman government starting with Theodosius I in 380 - controlled worship in Christianity.

They made it illegal for a layperson to own or even read any scripture, including the Bible. The Church printed only Latin Bibles (with Paul's life and letters taking up nearly half the New Testament) and banned any Bibles written in any other language. 




Does this sound like an organization that wanted to save people and preserve the teachings of Jesus? No. They simply wanted to control people. They wanted to make sure that their authority was not undermined. This was a political organization that tortured and murdered people.



What is a "fellowship offering"?

Just consider the word "fellowship" as in "fellowship offering" in some of the verses above. What does "fellowship" mean? Were they talking about fellowship between the congregation parishioners? No, because this was in context with a type of offering.







All take and no give?



*Here is the translation of this event according to the Lost Gospels of Jesus:
