Image source unknown. Appears to be AI generated.

by Brian Shilhavy

As we follow the story about the life of Jesus Christ in John’s gospel written in the New Testament portion of the Bible, we come to a very interesting passage in John chapter 7 which documents how the brothers of Jesus Christ turned against him, and mocked him.

To understand the events of chapter 7, however, we need to first look at what happened in chapter 6, where Jesus was addressing a huge crowd of over 5000 people, and miraculously turned “five small barley loaves and two small fish” into enough food to feed everyone, with plenty left over.

Some time after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias), and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the miraculous signs he had performed on the sick.

Then Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down with his disciples. The Jewish Passover Feast was near.

When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip,

“Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?”

He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do. Philip answered him,

“Eight months’ wages would not buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!”

Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, spoke up,

“Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?”

Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.”

There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them.

Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish. When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples,

“Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.”

So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten.

After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say,

“Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.”

Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself. (John 6:1-15)

As John writes at the beginning of this chapter, the news about Jesus was now starting to spread fast, because he literally healed everyone who came to him.

And now, with this miraculous way of multiplying food to feed the masses, they wanted to make him king over Israel.

But Jesus’s kingdom was not of this world. Satan offered it to him, but he refused.

So Jesus had to literally hide from the masses who actually liked him, but for selfish reasons. But Jesus’s problems with his new-found fame were only beginning.

Eventually the crowd found him, which led to Jesus’s next encounter with them later on in chapter 6. Jesus made it clear that he was not like Moses, who gave their forefathers “manna”, bread from heaven, so that the nation could live in the desert for 40 years.

Jesus tried to teach them the difference between physical food and spiritual food, while also prophesying about his own execution which would result in his body being killed, and his blood being spilled into the earth.

Once the crowd understood that there were no more free lunches coming, most of them abandoned him.

At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said,

“I am the bread that came down from heaven.”

They said,

“Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, “I came down from heaven’?”

“Stop grumbling among yourselves,”

Jesus answered.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’

Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.

But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.

This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves,

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them,

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. On hearing it, many of his disciples said,

“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them,

“Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.

The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

He went on to say,

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:41-66)

Jesus’s problems were just beginning. Not only did he lose most of his disciples, the ruling Jews also saw him as a threat, probably due to the way he could draw such large crowds through his miracles, and they began to plot his murder, as chapter 7 begins.

After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life. (John 7:1)

Were members of Jesus’s family among the disciples who stopped following him and turned against him?

The text does not say, but what follows gives us some insights into his “family” who began to oppose him.

Now, as I wrote last week, the English word for “family”, which today means mostly a “nuclear family” of a father, mother, and their children, is a concept that did not exist in biblical times. See:

The Western Concept of “Family” is Unknown in the Ancient Biblical Literature

Jesus probably belonged to a large household that revolved around the family business as “craftsmen”, probably stone masons and carpentry.

That household probably included blood siblings of Jesus, but most likely others who were also part of the business.

So when his “brothers” oppose him in the text, it is very possible that they were more than just his biological siblings. “Brothers” was also a term that Jesus used for his disciples, none of whom were his blood relatives.

But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him,

“You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.”

For even his own brothers did not believe in him. (John 7:2-5)

Jesus’s goal was clearly NOT to become a “public figure.” This is why he hid himself from the crowds when they tried to force him to become king.

And when he had to hide himself from the Jews who were trying to kill him, his own family criticized him for hiding.

Here is how Jesus responded to their criticisms:

Therefore Jesus told them,

“The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right.

The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.

You go to the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come.”

Having said this, he stayed in Galilee. (John 7:6-9)

Jesus explained a very important principle here for himself, and his true disciples. The world loves its own, and as long as you do the things that are approved by the world, which, by the way, includes the Christian religion today, then the world accepts you and protects you.

But if instead you expose the evil of the world, which I have done for decades now, such as exposing the pedophiles and sex traffickers within Christianity, both the pedo Priests in the Catholic Church and the pedophiles also among pastors in the non-Catholic churches (Mormons, Protestants, Evangelicals, etc.), then they will hate you and seek to destroy you.

For much of my life I have had to live in anonymity, because powerful people have wanted to destroy me, and lock me up, even in recent times.

My family thinks I am crazy for not using the same methods of communication that they do, such as cell phones, the “free” emails like Gmail, Yahoo, and others, which take all of your communications and add them into their huge databases that power their AI models.

It’s a difficult and hard life, as Christians and family members attack you and criticize you for not being part of the “community” that Christians insist everyone has to belong to.

But I take great comfort in knowing that the world treated Jesus the exact same way, because he exposed their evil deeds.

So when the right time did come, Jesus traveled to Jerusalem in secret, and confronted the crowds. He states a very important principle about those who serve Satan by bowing to the world system, and those who oppose Satan and suffer for it.

However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.

Now at the Feast the Jews were watching for him and asking,

“Where is that man?”

Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said,

“He is a good man.”

Others replied,

“No, he deceives the people.”

But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews.

Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach.

The Jews were amazed and asked,

“How did this man get such learning without having studied?”

Jesus answered,

“My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.

If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.” (John 7:10-18)

Who are the ones who are people of truth, and who are those who oppose the truth?

I highlighted the word “false” in the passage above, which is the opposite of “truth.”

The Greek word is ἀδικία (adikia), which occurs 25 times in the New Testament, with the most common translation being “unrighteousness”, at least in the older English translations, but it is also translated as “wickedness” and “injustice.”

It is primarily a legal term.

This is the entry in Thayer’s Greek Definitions:

1) injustice, of a judge
2) unrighteousness of heart and life
3) a deed violating law and justice, act of unrighteousness

Is this not exactly what we are seeing in the world today in “modern” society?

Those who, like Jesus said, are seeking “to gain honor for himself” will pervert justice to try and gain benefits for themselves.

But those who seek to honor God and expose injustice, are people of truth, who are then attacked by those whose evil deeds are being exposed by that truth.

This is the spiritual food that Jesus was talking about in John chapter 6: a hunger and thirst for righteousness, opposing injustice.

The day is coming where our hunger and thirst for justice will be fulfilled.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. (Matthew 5:6)

Comment on this article at Created4Health.org.

This article was written by Human Superior Intelligence (HSI)

See Also:

Understand the Times We are Currently Living Through

FREE eBook! The Concept of the American Christian Family is a Myth and is NOT Found Anywhere in the Bible – by Brian Shilhavy

FREE eBook! Restoring the Foundation of New Testament Faith in Jesus Christ – by Brian Shilhavy

The Brotherhood of Satan vs. The Brotherhood of Jesus Christ

KABBALAH: The Anti-Christ Religion of Satan that Controls the World Today

Exposing the Christian Zionism Cult

The Bewitching of America with the Evil Eye and the Mark of the Beast

Jesus Christ’s Opposition to the Jewish State: Lessons for Today

Identifying the Luciferian Globalists Implementing the New World Order – Who are the “Jews”?

The Brain Myth: Your Intellect and Thoughts Originate in Your Heart, Not Your Brain

What is the Condition of Your Heart? The Superiority of the Human Heart over the Human Brain

The post When Jesus’s Own Family Turned Against Him first appeared on Health Impact News.

Jason Arday, a former sociology professor at Cambridge University and the recent subject of a controversial plagiarism investigation, was found dead on Friday.

The Details: First responders found Arday, 41, unresponsive in Battersea, south London, where he had reportedly died on scene. The Metropolitan Police later stated, "At this time ​his death is being treated as unexpected but is not believed to be suspicious. The ​case is being investigated by officers from the Met's Central South Command Unit."

RELATED: Star Cambridge Professor Resigns After Mainstream Media Reveal Fraud, Sparking Dialogue on DEI and Academia | AllSides

Family Statement: "The campaign of misinformation was ​too much ⁠for Jason, who was a gentle man and who always wanted to see the best in everyone. We ⁠won't ​comment further at this point beyond asking the press ​to leave us alone now, and to stop the campaign of harassment which has been waged against Jason ​and his family for too long."

How The Media Covered It: The initial plagiarism investigations resulted in staunch media criticisms in recent weeks, sparking debates about university ethics and diversity initiatives (Arday became the youngest black professor at Cambridge in 2023 and was raised by Ghanaian immigrant parents). Coverage of his death, however, was largely similar across the political spectrum, likely due to the sensitivity of the news. Associated Press (Lean Left bias) did still note Arday's race in its headline, while Washington Examiner (Lean Right) did not.

RELATED: AllSides Analysis: How News Outlets Stylize "Black" and "White" in Coverage of Race

For Context: Several major British outlets released investigation findings about Arday in recent weeks. He resigned on August 5. The Telegraph (Center) reported that he repeatedly lied about authoring the book, "Being Young, Black and Male: Challenging the Dominant Discourse," and labeled Arday "a poster boy for the university's diversity drive."

RELATED: Cambridge Dictionary Updates its Definitions of 'Man' and 'Woman'

The Guardian (Left) cited a keynote address of Arday's in which he called conservatives "the cancer that we need to eradicate from academia." It reported, "Prominent academics of color that the Guardian spoke to said the claims of plagiarism were legitimate, and that Arday's alleged actions risked undermining others who study race." The University of Cambridge subsequently announced its own investigation following the outlets' reports.

Arday told The Times (Center) on July 31, "I am accountable for the mistakes I've made. I hold myself accountable, and other people should hold me accountable. We're talking about academia here. I didn't murder somebody. I think the cruelty that I've experienced – and the positioning of me as this kind of liar and fantasist – is totally unacceptable." Read more context of this story here.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

A Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) "anti-hate" task force consisting of team presidents and general managers met Wednesday to discuss eligibility rules for transgender athletes without reaching any conclusive decisions.

The Meeting: According to ESPN (Lean Left bias), a league spokesman said the "meeting covered a wide range of topics, including ongoing discussions on transgender athletes and the continued hate and vitriol directed at players online. We will continue to engage all league stakeholders in the coming weeks and months. We will approach these important conversations thoughtfully and in alignment with the values of our league. There are no immediate eligibility matters affecting the WNBA and we strongly denounce the bad-faith efforts to use these topics to demean or marginalize others."

Create A Narrative: Outlets on the left, like The Guardian (Left) tended to highlight the WNBA criticizing "those trying to create a narrative about transgender women playing in the league." The article mentioned that a person familiar with the discussion said the "meeting focused on the online hate and abuse directed at WNBA players." The Guardian also cited the WNBA's collective bargaining agreement stating that "only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA," explaining however, that it "does not include any more specific language about gender identity or sex assigned at birth."

Keeping Boys and Men Out: Outlets on the right, like National Review (Lean Right) tended to frame coverage around Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham, saying that "the topic has come to the forefront of the league" after she "told ESPN that she supports keeping boys and men out of girls' and women's sports." Cunningham said "I think I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn't have to go against biological men."

Insanity: The New York Post Editorial Board (Right) criticized the WNBA, saying "An organization with the word 'women' in its name should be able to say what a woman is, but the Women's National Basketball Association can't bring itself to affirm something so basic, for fear of defying pieties about 'gender identity.'" According to the editorial board, "Letting men play would destroy the WNBA, and everyone knows it," adding that "the same is true of male rapists who claim to identify as female in order to be placed in women's prisons, and of other predators who seek to invade women's spaces." The board asserted that "It's insane to say such claims must not be denied, but the extreme 'pro trans' position is insane."

Culture War Dopamine or Calling Out Hypocrisy: Opinion writer for MS Now (Left) Mike Wise claimed that Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White, two former NBA players who recently declared themselves eligible for the 2027 WNBA draft, are operating on "culture war dopamine." According to Wise, culture war dopamine is "that euphoric feeling that follows making an outrageous statement on the controversy du jour," and "addicts are known to swap logic and reason for Fox News appearances."  Wise explained that "These aren't merely political stunts mocking the league and the women who play in it, but maliscious attempts to demean a marginalized population in the apparent hope that a NewsNation or Fox News producer will call for an interview so these budding hot-takers can be given some attention on what is a non-issue." The New York Post article referenced above pushed back on this, saying "Kanter and White aren't acting in bad faith, exactly; they're calling out the hypocrisy of a women's sports league bowing to a perverse ideology that allows some depraved men to pose as women."

Related: Former NBA Player Enes Kanter Freedom Declares for 2027 WNBA Draft

Word Choice: Coverage from the left tended to choose language such as "assigned at birth" while outlets on the right elected to say, "biological male" or "biological female." 

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) is facing calls to resign and end his reelection campaign following domestic abuse allegations from his ex-wife Emily Moreno.

How The Media Covered It: Outlets on the left framed Republicans' response to Miller as related to the party's purportedly shifting standards under President Donald Trump. On the right, sources examined the warning signs Republican leaders allegedly overlooked before helping Miller reach Congress, while some other outlets on the right emphasized the electoral risk of keeping him on the ballot.

A Test of the GOP's Standards: An opinion writer for The Atlantic (Left) tied Republicans' response to what she viewed as the party's changing standards under Trump. Contrasting the reaction to Miller with how Republicans treat allegations against political opponents, she wrote, "Perhaps only in President Trump's Republican Party does believing all women—or even some women, some of the time—become politically fraught."

The Warning Signs Republicans Overlooked: An opinion piece by The Dispatch (Lean Right) argued that Republicans helped elevate Miller despite earlier allegations and public accounts of troubling behavior. Pointing to Trump's endorsement of Miller against former Rep. Anthony Gonzales, McCormack concluded that Trump "ought to have known that Miller was a snake."

A GOP Seat at Risk: Washington Examiner (Lean Right) opinion writer Tiana Lowe Doescher argued that Miller's departure is both a moral and political necessity. Warning that his campaign could cost Republicans a competitive House seat, she wrote, "Miller probably cannot win even if he wanted to," and could "drag down the rest of the party with him."

For Context:

• Miller won reelection in 2024 with just over 50% of the vote.
• The Cook Political Report rates Ohio's 7th District as R +5, and has now moved the 2026 race from "likely Republican" to "Toss-Up."
• Ohio redrew its congressional districts in October 2025, and the new boundaries will be used through the 2026 elections.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Legal questions arise following a surrogate mother who refused to terminate the pregnancy at the request of the legal intended parents after the fetus was found to have hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Right and left media split in how they covered the story, with right outlets emphasizing anti-abortion stances and left outlets highlighting the legal intended parents' grief and rights.

The Details: Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar contracted McKenna West as their surrogate while West was living in Alaska. When the fetus was discovered to have hypoplastic left heart syndrome, the legal intended parents opted to terminate the pregnancy rather than have the child undergo multiple surgeries at birth to attempt to correct the life-threatening condition. The surrogate refused to have an abortion, instead traveling to Texas to birth the child. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has intervened to ensure the newborn receives the necessary medical care within the state. West is also seeking custody of the child.

For Context: The surrogacy contract between West, Ahmed, and Gilkar allowed the intended legal parents to end the pregnancy via abortion, according to New York Times (Lean Left bias). Paxton secured a temporary restraining order that requires the child to stay in Texas to receive medical care until a hearing in late August. The order also requires the legal parents to provide "medically indicated, lifesaving treatment" to the baby. The county also issued a restraining order against the surrogate mother, West, banning her from presenting herself as the child's parent in any circumstance. Texas law states a woman who gives birth to a baby is that child's legal parent, meaning that at the hearing in late August, a judge will decide whether the legal contract Ahmed and Gilkar signed with West gives them legal parental rights and the right to make medical decisions for the baby.

How the Media Covered It: The Post Millennial (Right) described the baby's condition as a "treatable heart defect," while New York Times described it as "rare and life-threatening." Post Millennial also referred to the baby as "Gabriel," which was a name chosen by West, despite the legal intended parents choosing a different name for the child. New York Times quoted Ahmed and Gilkar's attorney, saying, "As if the heartbreak of his condition were not enough, they are devastated to see their family tragedy transformed into political theater by the Texas Attorney General's office and McKenna West." It also quoted the president of anti-abortion group Live Action, who said, "They [the parents] were treating her baby like a product. The product had a defect, and so they were trying to send it back."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.