CAF Bible Study - The Gospel of John

[Church_Militant]

[15] When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
[16] A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
[17] He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

This passage really speaks to me of the special mission that Our Lord gave to St. Peter. I can’t help it if some other people don’t want to believe it, but to me this screams out the establishment of Peter as the very first of “the first among equals” and “the servant of the servants of God”.

What a blessing this is!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

This passage really speaks to me of the special mission that Our Lord gave to St. Peter. I can’t help it if some other people don’t want to believe it, but to me this screams out the establishment of Peter as the very first of “the first among equals” and “the servant of the servants of God”.

What a blessing this is!!!

Yes, but first he had to face his demons. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the last time Peter is facing a charcoal fire, he is denying Christ three times? Then, Jesus chooses to light a charcoal fire and allow Peter to “un-deny” Him three times. I imagine the fire itself was bad enough (since it brought back the memory to Peter, maybe?) but the realization that Jesus KNEW that Peter denied Him was far FAR worse.

Ouch.

 

[August_AWeitzel]

[11] But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb;
[12] and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet.
[13] They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”
[14] Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus.
[15] Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”
[16] Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rab-bo’ni!” (which means Teacher).
[17] Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
[18] Mary Mag’dalene went and said to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.

This is an interesting passage that raises a question that I had not really considered until just now.

Does verse 17 imply that our Lord ascended more than the once that we know the apostles record for us that they witnessed?

I don’t think I have ever heard anything from any source that would even imply such a thing. but perhaps I’ll ask my parish priest about that.

I’m thinking about this in context of Acts 1:1-9. Doctrinally, I suppose it’s irrelevant, but it is a curiosity.

When was the first: Jesus rose again from the dead?

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes, but first he had to face his demons. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the last time Peter is facing a charcoal fire, he is denying Christ three times? Then, Jesus chooses to light a charcoal fire and allow Peter to “un-deny” Him three times. I imagine the fire itself was bad enough (since it brought back the memory to Peter, maybe?) but the realization that Jesus KNEW that Peter denied Him was far FAR worse.

Ouch.

Sure possible and an good insight.

 

[Church_Militant]

When was the first: Jesus rose again from the dead?

I’m not sure that that is even valid August, it was just something that struck me from the text.

I suppose that that is possible, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone actually teach such a thing, nor do I want to assert it myself. It was just something that is curious to me.

 

[August_AWeitzel]

I’m not sure that that is even valid August, it was just something that struck me from the text.

I suppose that that is possible, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone actually teach such a thing, nor do I want to assert it myself. It was just something that is curious to me.

Et resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas
And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures
Again? when was the first time!!!

 

[Church_Militant]

Et resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas
And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures
Again? when was the first time!!!

All I can figure is that perhaps there was something just after he spoke with Mary Magdalen and the of course at the Ascension.

I’m not at all saying that this is even likely, but it’s just weird that here Our Lord tells her not to touch him and then before He ascends he tells Thomas to touch Him. I don’t know what to say…it’s just something that I noticed.

 

[NotWorthy]

All I can figure is that perhaps there was something just after he spoke with Mary Magdalen and the of course at the Ascension.

I’m not at all saying that this is even likely, but it’s just weird that here Our Lord tells her not to touch him and then before He ascends he tells Thomas to touch Him. I don’t know what to say…it’s just something that I noticed.

I heard something regarding this once, that is really out there.

Jesus is the Sacrifice. In the Mosaic Covenant, all sacrifices, the parts that weren’t eaten, were burned, and the odor from them would ascend to heaven. But until this happened, between the killing of the sacrificial animal and the scent ascending into the heavens, only the priest could handle the sacrifice.

The Apostles have been ordained priests at the Last Supper. Mary Magdalene has not (nor will she) be ordained, hence, she can’t touch Jesus.

Tim Gray is the one that presented this, and he said it’s only a theory, so this is not doctrine, it’s only a theory.

 

[Church_Militant]

I heard something regarding this once, that is really out there.

Jesus is the Sacrifice. In the Mosaic Covenant, all sacrifices, the parts that weren’t eaten, were burned, and the odor from them would ascend to heaven. But until this happened, between the killing of the sacrificial animal and the scent ascending into the heavens, only the priest could handle the sacrifice.

The Apostles have been ordained priests at the Last Supper. Mary Magdalene has not (nor will she) be ordained, hence, she can’t touch Jesus.

Tim Gray is the one that presented this, and he said it’s only a theory, so this is not doctrine, it’s only a theory.

Thanks…that fits with this whole idea and makes some sense of it. This is all theory of course and not meant to be taken as church teaching.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Et resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas
And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures
Again? when was the first time!!!

In the context of scriptural discussion, I would proffer thiis as one way to look at it:
Abraham reasoned that if God can bring forth a child from a dead womb he could even bring him back from the dead.

The second way I would look at church teaching is that there is an ambiguity in what is meant by association of Again – is it again he rose, for he was above ground – or again he rose from the dead, perhaps in the sense I have mentioned with respect to Abraham which is the very prophecy of Jesus’ resurrection.

 

[lak611]

John Chapter 21
[21] When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?”
[22] Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!”

I was really struck by these verses. What Jesus said to Peter regarding John is basically what He is saying to all of us. Each one of us is called to follow Jesus. He has a different plan for all of us. We need to listen to His call to us and follow Him where He leads us. Sometimes we get caught up in what other people are doing and forget about listening to Jesus call us. I know I do sometimes.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

John Chapter 20

[1] Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag’dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.
…

To backtrack, just a moment, for a meditation:
I was meditating on this passage again, and was noticing the use of “lithos” here for rock. I have generally heard people argue about the size of the stone, as if the false argument of Peter the little rock vs. big rock is somehow duplicated in the small stone (lithos) that covered the tomb – which also suggests that perhaps the tomb itself was small…

But then again, I am struck by the very strong relationship I have observed between lithos and writing. lithography is the carving of letters into stone.
petroglyphs are usually signs either painted superficially, or worked into the stone.

I can’t help but see in my mind a relationship between that of the “hearts of stone”, which Israel was continuously upbraided by the prophets of having – foremost at the decalogue, the “ten words” which are not written on gold as a sign of divinity, but on stone as a sign of the hardness and permanence of hearts.

Deute 5:22 … δυο πλακας λιθινας …

Two tables (plaques? tablets?) of stone “lithos”

The stone which covered the tomb was taken away for what reason?

The resurrected body could enter through locked doors – surely stone couldn’t hold it – and would this have not shown the greatness of the miracle even more? Yet Jesus chose not to do it that way, but to remove it.

Surely the woman would have been able to remove the rock by herself if it were small, and the miracle could not have gone un-noticed, but if it were large she might have to wait…

I am not sure why it is mentioned at all.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

John Chapter 21
[1] After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tibe’ri-as; and he revealed himself in this way.
[2] Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathan’a-el of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zeb’edee, and two others of his disciples were together.
[3] Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.” They went out and got into the boat; but that night they caught nothing.

This is to be the third time Jesus appears to the disciples. A number so intimately connected with his death in some way, yet so elusive. Jonas spent three days in the belly(intestines/guts) of a fish. And here we return to fish going the opposite way – the son of man with a resurrected REAL body consuming a fish.

I also notice that the number is mentioned in conjuntion with betrayal, but otherwise is relatively spare in scripture with a meaning not quite obvious – unlike three and a HALF which is always evil.

[13] Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish.

I have so many more thoughts, but I have to go now – lunchtime for the kids.

 

[August_AWeitzel]

All I can figure is that perhaps there was something just after he spoke with Mary Magdalen and the of course at the Ascension.

I’m not at all saying that this is even likely, but it’s just weird that here Our Lord tells her not to touch him and then before He ascends he tells Thomas to touch Him. I don’t know what to say…it’s just something that I noticed.

Okay, but how did it get in the Apostles Creed, what did they mean by it?

I’m not sure that that is even valid August, it was just something that struck me from the text.

I suppose that that is possible, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone actually teach such a thing, nor do I want to assert it myself. It was just something that is curious to me.

Isn’t tje statement in the Apostles Creed ‘rose again from the dead’

Thanks…that fits with this whole idea and makes some sense of it. This is all theory of course and not meant to be taken as church teaching.

The Catholic Church allows it in the NICENE CREED’and on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures’

 

[August_AWeitzel]

This is to be the third time Jesus appears to the disciples. A number so intimately connected with his death in some way, yet so elusive. Jonas spent three days in the belly(intestines/guts) of a fish. And here we return to fish going the opposite way – the son of man with a resurrected REAL body consuming a fish.

I also notice that the number is mentioned in conjuntion with betrayal, but otherwise is relatively spare in scripture with a meaning not quite obvious – unlike three and a HALF which is always evil.

St. John takes care to note also, the items which made up their meal. Not the eucharist as such in the upper room, but a recollection of the two different multiplications of bread and fish to feed the large crowds before the eucharistic discourse.

I have so many more thoughts, but I have to go now – lunchtime for the kids.

EAT AGAIN?

 

[lak611]

August_AWeitzel:

Isn’t tje statement in the Apostles Creed ‘rose again from the dead’

August_AWeitzel:

The Catholic Church allows it in the NICENE CREED’and on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures’

If you want to discuss the Creeds, why don’t you start a new thread in the Apologetics Forum? Your questions have nothing to do with the Bible study we are having here.

 

[NotWorthy]

August_AWeitzel:

The Catholic Church allows it in the NICENE CREED’and on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures’

I think Church Militant’s quote is in response to my post regarding Jesus being the Sacrifice that only Thomas and the priests could handle, instead of Mary.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I’ve posted this before in different threads, but for those who haven’t seen it, I picked up an intriguing bit of info regarding John 21:11 from Steve Ray’s book, The Gospel of John.

10] Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.”
[11] So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three of them; and although there were so many, the net was not torn.

Notice here that though various apostles helped catch the fish, it is Peter who brings the fish to Jesus. A reasonable interpretation of the net full of fish is that it represents the Church, full of believers. What is interesting, and often overlooked, is that the second part of the verse says “and although there were so many, the net was not torn.” The Greek word for torn is translated as “schizo” from which the word “schism” is derived. So, continuing on with the analogy, that would mean that the net (Church) of Peter is **not **torn (schism).

I don’t suppose that is an interpretation that the Orthodox nor most protestants would appreciate. I find it very interesting though…

 

[Church_Militant]

I’ve posted this before in different threads, but for those who haven’t seen it, I picked up an intriguing bit of info regarding John 21:11 from Steve Ray’s book, The Gospel of John

.

Notice here that though various apostles helped catch the fish, it is Peter who brings the fish to Jesus. A reasonable interpretation of the net full of fish is that it represents the Church, full of believers. What is interesting, and often overlooked, is that the second part of the verse says “and although there were so many, the net was not torn.” The Greek word for torn is translated as “schizo” from which the word “schism” is derived. So, continuing on with the analogy, that would mean that the net (Church) of Peter is **not **torn (schism).

I don’t suppose that is an interpretation that the Orthodox nor most protestants would appreciate. I find it very interesting though…

I appreciate that!

 

[NotWorthy]

Is it just me or has no one questioned what the 153 fish represent?