"He that is not against us is for us."

by Confession 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Confession

  Reading this scripture was important to my original willingness a couple of years ago to reconsider my religion...

  “John said to him: “Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; 40 for he that is not against us is for us.”” [Mark 9:38 – 40, NWT]

  This principle, clearly stated by Jesus, stands in stark contrast to what the Watchtower Society teaches. Indeed they teach ‘anyone not with us is against us.’ Any Witness seeing this scripture in usually bothered by it, so he or she will pull out the reference materials to look for the Society’s understanding on this. They will find the assertion that this principle was apparently only applicable to a very limited period of time—and not after Pentecost 33 C.E.—although Christ suggests no such thing.

  Directly before the aforementioned scripture is another account of the apostles “arguing on the road,” after which Jesus teaches…

  “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all.” [Mark 9:35, NWT]

  T his scripture is considered to have a pplication right until this day — unlike the one immediately adjacent to it that contradicts Watchtower teaching and therefore must be “explained.”
• 

  luna2

  this principle was apparently only applicable to a very limited period of time

  Just one more reminder of how full of sh*t the WTS is. I can just picture what they'd say if, after they trotted out the above, you said, "Well, the Bible doesn't say that and the understanding of the account just prior is that it is valid now." They'd either trot out the standard leave it to Beaver Jehovah phrase or something about not contradicting the holy GB. The really sad thing is that I can picture myself accepting such stupid responses.
• 

  under_believer

  Excellent post, Confession. It's in my permanent research file now. Though of course I was familiar with that scripture, the meaning of it never sunk in before. I am indebted to you.
• 

  Warlock

  That scripture always bothered me. Must have bothered some other people too, since it was never cited in any of lit. Like the scripture in Acts that talks about Peters angel.

  At least that's what I remember.

  Warlock (the "bothered" one)
• 

  lost_sheep

  Very thought-provoking post, Confession. i too had read this scripture before, but never realized the full implication. thank you for bringing this up! it does indeed fly in the face of the official Society doctrine. i learn something new every day on this board. i am continually dumbfounded by just how often the organization twists the meaning of the scriptures to suit their ideas.
  
  lost_sheep
• 

  Warlock

  Hey Sheepy:

  I'm dumbfounded about how I just let scriptures like that just go over my head without having a second thought.

  Warlock
• 

  Confession

  Yes, mostly the WTS will concentrate on the part of the scripture that says no one would 'quickly be able to revile Jesus.' They then throw out that 33 C.E. was when Christ officially instituted the Christian congregation--and that from that time on association with this group would be necessary in order to receive God's blessing.

  This of course leads us to another assertion of JWs, namely: God has ALWAYS worked through an organization. This is not true. (See Tom Cabeen's "Does God Work Through an Organization?" I know I post a link to this essay every week or two, but it was so helpful for me.)

  So if God has NOT chosen an earthly publishing agency as the sole dispenser of His truths, what IS the truth?

  That's for you and I both to decide if we so choose, but one thing is for sure: The Bible (what JWs claim to base their beliefs upon) can be used very effectively to prove that the Watchtower Society is not what it purports to be.
• 

  peacefulpete

  
  
  30 " ( AG ) He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. Matt 12:30; Luke 11:23
  

  I have often wondered about his verse. The general context of the present text of Matt 12 is the same as the Mark 9, different groups expelling demons and someone objecting. In Matt Jesus is made to say that he and his critics' sons were actually expelling demons by spirit of God because the devil would never expel himself for risk having a weakened divided house. By suggesting Jesus was expelling by power of the Devil then they were, by the logic of the Matthean author, suggesting their sons were also.
  

  27 "If I ( AD ) by Beelzebul cast out demons, ( AE ) by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges.

  This sentiment appears aligned with Mark 9 where someone doing "powerful works" including demon expelling was working on the same side as Jesus because what that someone was doing was consistant with Jesus' mission. Therefore, going back to Matt 12, for his critics to be suggesting that he was empowered by the devil, and thus opposing his activity, when it was God's spirit, was an unforgivable sin. So my point is though the words of Matt 12 and Mark 9 appear contradictory, what Matt is saying is that for people to oppose his, or by implication his critics' sons, miracles and demon expelling was in fact being "not with him" and therefore "against him" and sinning an unforgivable sin. Now since the WTS wishes to spin this Matt 12 story as foundation for condemning groups that claim to do Jesus-like miracles, are they then doing what the Matthean Jesus called "blasphemy of the spirit"???

  Personally I suspect verse 30 to have been introduced into the story in an early recension of Matt. (early enough for the Lukan author's copy to contain the words) because of its abruptness and intrusive thought. It can be accomodated in chapt 12 but IMO better fits with the sectarian sentiment in Matt 7 where Jesus is made to specifically condemn many who did 'powerful works in his name' because of being 'workers of Lawlessness' (eg. Paulinism). Perhaps the issue originally was convincing the larger Jewish community that Christians were not their enemy but then later they had to address and condemn the growing threat from Pauline "Lawless" Christianity that was blackening their reputation.
• 

  Leolaia

  The statement in Mark 9:40 has the form of an aphorism and likely was employed in the gospel tradition in varying narrative settings. This is confirmed by a non-canonical gospel fragment that associates it instead with the "Pray for your enemies" command:

  "When the scribes an[d the Pharise]es and the priests observ[ed hi]m, they were indignant because he [reclined in the com]pany of sinners. But Jesus overheard [them and said]: 'Those who are well [do not need a doctor].... And pray for your enemies. For the one who is not [against y]ou is for you. [He who today] is at a distance, tomorrow will be [near you]" (P Oxy 1224 5:1-2, 6:1-2).

  The saying that it is paired with (distant/near) is also different from the one in Luke 11:23.
• 

  greendawn

  They are too eager to demonise the world hoping to prove that they are hopelessly bad and the big A should not be late in coming since there is nothing good in the world, not so since the dubs benefited greatly from many "worldly" people.