Feed my little sheep, (John 21:15-17)

(John 21:15-17)  When, now, they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Peter:
“Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him: “Yes, Lord,
you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Feed my lambs.”  Again he said
to him, a second time: “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him: “Yes,
Lord, you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Shepherd my little sheep.”
 He said to him the third time: “Simon son of John, do you have affection for me?”
Peter became grieved that he said to him the third time: “Do you have affection for
me?” So he said to him: “Lord, you know all things; you are aware that I have
affection for you.” Jesus said to him: “Feed my little sheep.

questions for thought,

1. Why did Jesus ask if Peter had affection for him if as Peter states, Christ knew
that he had.

2. Why did Christ mention both feeding Christ sheep and shepherding them, what is
the difference.

3. What responsibility do these words of Christ place on Christians if any.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(John 21:15-17)  When, now, they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Peter:
“Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him: “Yes, Lord,
you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Feed my lambs.”  Again he said
to him, a second time: “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him: “Yes,
Lord, you know I hav ...[text shortened]...
the difference.

3. What responsibility do these words of Christ place on Christians if any.

1, "simon" was being rebuked.

2, food and shelter.

3, feed and shelter those who need it.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
1, "simon" was being rebuked.

2, food and shelter.

3, feed and shelter those who need it.

1. Hmm, no Simon was not being rebuked, Christ was aware that he had affection for him.
2. As one who has worked on a farm, one is at liberty to simply drive to the trough and
dump food, clearly this is different from shepherding. How so.
3. Hmmm, should we assume that its literal feeding and providing literal shelter, after
all, sheep, shepherd are all metaphors.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1. Hmm, no Simon was not being rebuked, Christ was aware that he had affection for him.
2. As one who has worked on a farm, one is at liberty to simply drive to the trough and
dump food, clearly this is different from shepherding. How so.
3. Hmmm, should we assume that its literal feeding and providing literal shelter, after
all, sheep, shepherd are all metaphors.

"sheep, shepherd are all metaphors."

So then, are day, and snake?

Originally posted by JS357
"sheep, shepherd are all metaphors."

So then, are day, and snake?

Is "cherry" in "life is a bowl of cherries" and "cherry picking" also a metaphor?

Originally posted by JS357
"sheep, shepherd are all metaphors."

So then, are day, and snake?

Let it be noted that Peter was a fisherman, not a shepherd and yes day and snake can be used metaphorically, for example, that yellow bellied snake RJH, his day will come 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Let it be noted that Peter was a fisherman, not a shepherd and yes day and snake can be used metaphorically, for example, that yellow bellied snake RJH, his day will come 🙂

I am not a yellow bellied snake. You know that shepherding the sheep means
providing for all their needs. One must make sure the lambs and sheep are
getting the proper amount and type of food for their needs. We need the
proper spiritual food to keep us spiritually healthy so we will not be tempted
by Satan's food.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not a yellow bellied snake. You know that shepherding the sheep means
providing for all their needs. One must make sure the lambs and sheep are
getting the proper amount and type of food for their needs. We need the
proper spiritual food to keep us spiritually healthy so we will not be tempted
by Satan's food.

of course your not a real snake RJH, it was just by way of an example.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1. Hmm, no Simon was not being rebuked, Christ was aware that he had affection for him.

the use of language and the way peter was addressed, it was a rebuke of simon's imperfect love for jesus.

jesus addresses peter as simon, son of john and asks simon if he "loves" him. the word used for love in the language translates to supreme love. simon's response was that he had "affection" for christ. affection does not have the same force as love.

for the second time christ asks if simon loves him and simon's reply is again to say that he has affection towards christ.

the 3rd time, christ asks simon if he has "affection" towards him. this is when simon feels distraught since he has figured out he is being rebuked.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the use of language and the way peter was addressed, it was a rebuke of simon's imperfect love for jesus.

jesus addresses peter as simon, son of john and asks simon if he "loves" him. the word used for love in the language translates to supreme love. simon's response was that he had "affection" for christ. affection does not have the same force as l ...[text shortened]... him. this is when simon feels distraught since he has figured out he is being rebuked.

Study hard and maybe you will be a Christian one day when you grow up.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the use of language and the way peter was addressed, it was a rebuke of simon's imperfect love for jesus.

jesus addresses peter as simon, son of john and asks simon if he "loves" him. the word used for love in the language translates to supreme love. simon's response was that he had "affection" for christ. affection does not have the same force as l him. this is when simon feels distraught since he has figured out he is being rebuked.

the word used for love in the language translates to supreme love??

sorry i just checked an Interlinear, you are havering, AGAIN, the word Christ uses is a
form of the Greek term, agape, which is principled love, the term Peter replies in, is a
form of Philia, brotherly love, translated in this instance as, affection

Simon is not being rebuked, Christ is asking him, that if he has affection for him, as he
claims, then will this affection motivate him to do something.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the word used for love in the language translates to supreme love??

sorry i just checked an Interlinear, you are havering, AGAIN, the word Christ uses is a
form of the Greek term, agape, which is principled love, the term Peter replies in, is a
form of Philia, brotherly love, translated in this instance as, affection

Simon is not being rebuk ...[text shortened]... he has affection for him, as he
claims, then will this affection motivate him to do something.

Jesus said, "If you love me, obey My commandments" (not the Watchtower Society's commandments).

Originally posted by RJHinds
Jesus said, "If you love me, obey My commandments" (not the Watchtower Society's commandments).

take it to your anti watchtower bible and tract society thread Ron Jonah Hinds, this is
about a specific passage in the Bible, which you are free to comment upon, otherwise
start your own thread for your petty jealousies.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
take it to your anti watchtower bible and tract society thread Ron Jonah Hinds, this is
about a specific passage in the Bible, which you are free to comment upon, otherwise
start your own thread for your petty jealousies.

Lol. RJH and love? What an oxymoron.... He would kill any Christin in any country if his country told him too.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the word used for love in the language translates to supreme love??

sorry i just checked an Interlinear, you are havering, AGAIN, the word Christ uses is a
form of the Greek term, agape, which is principled love, the term Peter replies in, is a
form of Philia, brotherly love, translated in this instance as, affection

Simon is not being rebuk ...[text shortened]... he has affection for him, as he
claims, then will this affection motivate him to do something.

you have failed to understand the significance of the language used. keep trying.