by Valis 29 Replies latest jw friends
It proves that Jesus didn't understand the term "false dilemma" nor the concept of "neutral."
Farkmeister....it would be argued that this scripture should be taken in context. The argument would be that Jesus meant....."those that knew him" that were not against him, and also preached him.......were for him. It seems that's what he meant to me anyhow.
Edited by - Gumby on 12 October 2002 20:8:22
The funny thing is that Luke also has Jesus say the opposite:
Luke 11: 23 "He who is not with Me is against Me"
So which one is it?
- Jan
Jan..
I think those two scriptures are apples and oranges and are not comparative. Kind of like "all dogs are animals", but "not all animals are dogs"... both sound comparative, but they're not.
Edited by - Double Edge on 12 October 2002 21:24:13
May you all have peace... and may I respond? Thank you!
It is not all that difficult: In the first instance, the man was going around doing a GOOD deed: casting OUT demons, rather than misleading people to be "bound" to one or more of them. And he was doing so on the basis of the name of Christ. He did not KNOW my Lord, but... he had faith that if he only invoked the name, what he had "wished" would occur. Based on his FAITH, then, it did. However, the disciples, rather than rejoicing over the GOOD work, began to form a jealousy... which (jealousy) goes AGAINST the spirit (the thing that "conquers" evil is love... and love... is not jealous).
Because my Lord's "work" was to serve, in love, and it was the "lesson" he was TRYING to teach his disciples at that time, his response was appropriate: okay, so the man not himself a disciple, per se. BUT... his LOVE... as MANIFESTED by his "works of FAITH"... his even TRYING to help these people and believing that invoking the name of Christ WOULD help... PROVED him to be a "disciple". Thus, he was not "against" them... but FOR them.
In the second instance brought out by JanH, however, this is a mistransliteration of the meaning of "with", in that my Lord meant that he that is blatantly and decidedly not "with" him... or he that MANIFESTS himself AGAINST him... is against him. And that manifestation was not only toward my Lord, but toward those "sent" by him, as well as the "least" of any he considered to be his "brothers". Even in this day.
Matthew 10:40-42; 25:34-46
It is not that difficult to get the sense of things such as this: all one need do is listen... to the SPIRIT of what is written/said/quoted, versus the LETTER of what is written/said/quoted. As the Paul (?) wrote to Titus, "ALL things are 'clean' to clean persons. But to persons defiled and FAITHLESS... NOTHING is clean but both their minds AND their consciences are defiled." My point? If you look for the "bad" in ANYTHING... you will find it. And if you look for the "good", you can find that, as well. The choice, dear ones, is ours... entirely.
We "see"... what we want to see... and if our hearts and minds are "dark"... or it truly wishes to "see" nothing... then that... is what we'll see.
(A note, if you will permit me, as my Lord has directed me to speak: such "darkness"... hatefulness, borne out in spitefulness, contentiousness and negativity... was what we were TAUGHT... by the "false prophets" of the WTBTS. Remember? Remember how we scrutinized everything that was not what WE were taught by them or thought it should be as they led us to believe? Remember how we questioned EVERYONE'S motive... but our own? That darkness, dear ones... was TRULY great. Our "eyes" were NOT "simple"... but were always looking for a way... and person... to accuse. The Light, though, is not like that. John 8:12 Rather than accuse, he EXCUSED... rather than condemn, he RELEASED... and looked for the good in ones, and what they said/asked, rather than the bad - Luke 19:2, 5-10. With the exception of the hypocrites, who expected more from others than even they themselves could... or would... do... and yet, expected to be forgiven for THEIR sins, errors and shortcoming... or assumed themselves to be "without sin."
I, myself, SJ, have spoken it to you, just as I have heard and received it from my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, the Son and Christ of the Holy One of Israel, whose name is JAH... of Armies.)
I bid you all peace.
A slave of Christ,
SJ
Edited by - AGuest on 12 October 2002 21:42:31
Double Edge,
They are in fact mutually exclusive, at least if we assume there exist people who are neutral, or not at all aware of whatever Jesus wants to accomplish (which surely was and is the case). Logically, the sayings cannot be reconciled.
In one of the sayings, Jesus says that those who are not working against him actively are actually helping him. In the other, he says that everybody that is not actively supporting him are in reality his opponents. The first is inclusive, the second exclusive and quite fanatical.
If Jesus ever lived and indeed said any of this, it is very reasonable to assume that he said one of them, and that his followers garbled and in fact inverted it to produce the other. I'd guess the inclusive version is the oldest.
- Jan
Valis,
I would like your opinions on how it might relate to how we view each other.
Do you mean how we on the board view each other? That was the meaning I got from it. If so, it takes on a new "path" to what's been noted so far.
First, I suppose a "purpose" for the board would have to be stated. Those could include education, healing, a chance to vent, a way to strike back at the WBTS, etc. And if more than one of those apply to each of us, the mix is different for all. Some may be more into the need to vent/heal than to learn, necessarily.
About the only purpose I see above that could be seen as having "sides" would be to strike back. There has been the occasional debate, usually between two posters in an unrelated (maybe semi-related) thread, on whether or not that's the reason for JWD, and that very rarely.
Farkel makes a good point when he mentions neutrality. In this case, A can say they believe the board is a tool for the WBTS' destruction, B can say it is not the purpose. Is B opposing A? Well, yes and no. Yes, verbally. In terms of practical effect, one could say B's neutral (not doing anything actively to oppose, if that were possible somehow) or not (practical effects test).
It might be possible to make a case that YouKnow, SwordofJah, and others educate more than they oppose when they debate the anti-JW mood here. Fence-sitters can see devoted (not being sarcastic) believers in action, their thought processes, how they respond to particular issues, and as Jesus said, "[they them]selves said it." Their words bear witness for or against them later.
Lots of activities in life require an "either/or" response from people, and we run our politics the same way. Hot-button issues are almost barren of a middle ground, sometimes because partisans for both sides won't let you be neutral--they demand to know where you stand. God help you if you're on trial and they get on the jury.
BTW JanH, welcome back. Missed your posts.
gumby,
: Farkmeister....it would be argued that this scripture should be taken in context. The argument would be that Jesus meant....."those that knew him" that were not against him, and also preached him.......were for him. It seems that's what he meant to me anyhow.
It's a shame he couldn't just say what he actually meant, then. For apologists, the Bible always has to be "explained," and of course, the various "explanations" people come up with has caused untold misery and death over the millennia.
God needs to do more planning before he releases his next book. (And get a good editor, who knows how to be precise in communication.)
Farkel
Great post, Valis. First of all, it is good for us to remember here on the board, that we are here for different reasons. As long as we are opposing evil, we are brothers.
Also, I also thought of this scripture when I first encountered the exclusivity of the WTS beliefs. Who made them the sole source for God's favour? On a whim, I checked out my honey's CD on Luke 9:49,50. Funny. The FDS is deafeningly SILENT on the interpretation of this scripture.
Hmmmmm
Farkel,
For apologists, the Bible always has to be "explained," and of course, the various "explanations" people come up with has caused untold misery and death over the millennia.
And a big Amen to that!
If I were to write the Bible....I could do a much better job at explaining things.......and I'm braindead!
