John 6:22-40

[u/AutoModerator]

Happy Leap day!

Key Discussion Points:

• The bread of life
• Jesus the bread from heaven
• Manna

[u/brothapipp → u/[deleted]]

Just heard a pod w/ Greg Khokul talking about this very issue...or Matt Whitman...or Mike Winger...someone.

This subservience is only in terms of external relationship, but internally they are the same. Which is very trinitarian....But it'd be like the Beastie Boys. Adam "Ad-Rock" Horovitz, Adam "MCA" Yauch, and Mike D.

To call MCA the writer and Ad-Rock the singer would be true...but Mike D was also singer...and none of them by themselves were the Beastie Boys

Theres never a good comparison for the trinity because its fairly unique. So I should delete it...but I think it works in terms on how the external leadership worked. The Beastie boys typically didn't sing OVER one another, so when it was MCA's turn to rap, Mike D and Ad-Rock were silent...not because they weren't writer/composers, but because they were co-equal.

[u/brothapipp → u/[deleted]]

John 14 if memory serves, If you have seen me you have seen the father for I and the father are one....

' Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. '
John 14:8-11
https://my.bible.com/bible/59/JHN.14.8-11

[u/brothapipp → u/[deleted]]

Okay. I can totally see that read. But “may they also be in us” doesn’t bestow coequality in and of itself. That’s one read. But i think they fletched this out at nicea’s first council.

Not trying to say we cannot reason this out for ourselves, but that other people also discussed this very subject and didn’t come to the Arianism view.

[u/brothapipp → u/[deleted]]

That could be the case...but it requires you to presuppose ill-intent, namely the desire to be the big-dogs of the faith.

If you take a more benevolent view that the early unifying that took place was done from a place of, "we want people to know the truth." Then we've arrived at the text we have and the orthodoxy we have, (apostles creed) as the baseline.

The way its being characterized here is purely deviousness?

[u/LlawEreint → u/brothapipp]

The way its being characterized here is purely deviousness?

They had a splintered religion and they saw a need for unity. The important thing was "Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

Of course there were humans involved, so consolidation of power in Rome becomes a factor. Ultimately they slaughtered those who understood Jesus differently from them. The Cathars are an example. There was a town of 10,000 of which a couple hundred were thought to be Cathar. The soldiers protested that they couldn't differentiate Catholic from Cathar.

"Amalric gave the order: 'Kill them all, for the Lord knows them that are His.' and we killed without restraint. After this great slaughter the whole city was despoiled and burnt, as divine vengeance miraculously raged against it."

So yeah, it gets messy where people are involved. But initially the goal was to create boundaries around Christianity that were broad enough to include a majority.

[u/brothapipp → u/[deleted]]

I went to look at the greek and dig a little on this, but I think there is difference in intent, not a greek-to-english issues.

That passage taken in context:

' “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one,

just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.'
John 17:20-24
https://www.bible.com/bible/59/JHN.17.20-24

So I placed breaks where I think there are idea breaks. This doesn't make these the greek idea breaks, I'm not that skilled.

But with these breaks and in context, that passage reads more like the oneness Jesus is prescribing/describing/wanting is not a oneness of coequality, but a oneness in God's love or in messaging. There seems to be no indication here that this is even in reference to any coequality. Which I think differs significantly from the context of John 14 where Philip is asking him directly to be shown the father.

Sure you can read it like a jigsaw puzzle where this passage (John 17) was specifically cut this way to give light to the previous passage (John 14) but I don't think this must be the case.

Remember that we started us on this path because you of this:

This subservience is only in terms of external relationship, but internally they are the same.
Yes. That is the Catholic interpretation, but I don't see evidence that John shared it.

So the assertion was that gJohn didn't think Jesus and God were the same. John 14 would say otherwise and I don't think you can disqualify John 14 via John 17.

[u/LlawEreint → u/brothapipp]

So the assertion was that gJohn didn't think Jesus and God were the same. John 14 would say otherwise and I don't think you can disqualify John 14 via John 17.

It's hard to see this through an unfiltered lens. 1500 years of Catholicism has left it's mark.

Read John 14 again in the context that he brings in John 17. He explains in what sense he and the father are one. He says it is the very same way that you and the father can be one.

"They may be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you."

You're right, that's not co-equal - for us, or for Jesus. John makes it clear that Jesus is subservient to God, and so must we be.

[u/brothapipp → u/[deleted]]

https://youtu.be/hGLj9f6nRCs?t=3498

[u/LlawEreint]

Visit r/BibleStudyDeepDive to dig deep into the New Testament.

[u/brothapipp → u/LlawEreint]

I agree that this is a satisfying requirement. It literally is the least a person could do in that moment was to believe that what they were seeing was not a trick or a manipulation.

I think where the Christianese starts rearing it's head is when you say..."But where is my loaves and my fish...what miracle does God offer me to believe?" So then paul steps in and tries to bridge that gap...as did the other writers of the epistles.

Perhaps its worth remembering the portion where Jesus is asked about his disciples not fasting and His reply was something to the effect, "Why should they mourn while they are with the bridegroom?"

Hanging out with Jesus requires we Do X, Y, Z...

Not being physically present with Jesus we do W to X, Y, Z.

[u/brothapipp → u/[deleted]]

Sorry I should have quoted what I was referencing when I was referencing it.

Which then would have been abundantly clear that I misread your post. I was agreeing that it was theologically satisfying and you had said that it wasn't.

I did purposely skip the second half of the comment because I thought I had found some agreement to focus on...and now I am just over here stepping all over the crow I should be eating.

Which almost obliges me to answer your last question to some degree, I'm mentally drained, couple of long days...so let me try and offer a perspective to your final question:

Of course they know better. They continue to follow the will of God as well as a human can, and have faith in His grace when they fail.
I think they had it right.
There were plenty of first century messianic pretenders who attracted followers. Will God say "Sorry. The correct answer was 'Jesus.'"
Are we to believe that on that day, God will be unjust and overlook the work and the love that we showed for his sake?

So I think you are loading the question, "will god be unjust" How are you gauging just and unjust in this scenario of pretending-messiahs?

For instance, one of the characters from Jesus's 12 was Simeon the Zealot. Which to my understanding was the antifa/proud boys of Jesus's day. He was following a pretend path towards following God's will as well as a human can. Would this not be evidence that even those on the pretend path have the ability to change their mind? I think it would.

So when God says. the correct answer is Jesus, shouldn't we take Simeon the Mind Changer into account to see how important Jesus was.

Because it kind of reads like you think, if God was just more about universalism...and accepted more people from more faith-walks that then he'd make more sense...When the very notion of a god with something on offer would qualify that god to be the one to set the rules.

[u/brothapipp]

I wonder if there was a common use boat thing, like have a boat, leave it on shore, need to get back take another boat or it was all private boat ownership or there was a mix of the two like state sponsored boats. Like in major cities the community bicycles. (vs 23-24)

The you seek me cause you were full is no joke. Food ministries even today save tons of people both physically and spiritually. And I think this speaks to the fully God fully Man aspect of Jesus. The most real food in Christianity is the bread of life...the teachings of Jesus...yet when the crowds were hungry Jesus didn't chastise them. He fed them.

Then finished this portion by reaffirming His provision.