Anyone who is not with me is against me?

[Bodhi303]

Hi CAF! My very first thread, hope this goes well.

I wanted to know what Jesus meant exactly when he said this. If you are not with me, you are against me
Was there some audience he was addressing or some context that needs to be understood before taking this statement as is. There usually is. I got a book by Fr. Baron for Christmas and he only skirts the issue once, he doesn’t really go into too much detail.

My concern is that it really bothered me when these words left the mouth of Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars Episode III as he was turning into Darth Vader. And Obi Wan Kenobi responds “Only a Sith deals in absolutes”….

I know, I know professional geek in your midst
You can stop laughing at any time………………….:
Still laughing I see …………………….
I’ll wait ((((crosses arms)))…
Ahem!! You still have some tears in your eyes…
Truthfully, I’m laughing at me too…lol

I know it’s just a movie but someone paraphrasing Jesus’ words to illustrate a character’s complete transformation into pure evil didn’t sit well with me. And honestly I agree with Obi Wan…why the absolutes? So, I’m hoping George Lucas is misinterpreting this verse.
Any insights into this scripture verse would be helpful, Thanks in advance.

 

[KrazyKat]

Anyone who does not believe that Jesus Christ is the redeemer and that the only way to God is through Him, is anti Christ.

As for the movie? Never saw it, what truth can come from Hollywood?

 

[spiderweb]

When it comes to our eternity it is an “absolute”. Make your choice, heaven or hell: God or Satan. There is no middle road. To simply go through life and not actively choose to follow God when you know that you should is in effect to reject him. By following our own will and ignoring God’s will for us is rejecting him.

It seems to me that not to deal with absolutes is to get into moral relativism, which in effect also denies Christ who is The Truth. Moral relativism claims that there is no such truth, only what appears to be true for each individual.

In our mind there may be gray areas or things that we simply don’t know for certain in certain circumstances what is right or wrong. But God does know, and he is “absolute Truth”.

As to what George Lucas was intending to mean with that line in the movie, I can’t say but I did love all the Star Wars movies, but that’s just my absolute opinion.

 

[chefmomster2]

Luke 9 (New American Bible, Revised Edition)

Another Exorcist
49 Then John said in reply, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company.” 50 Jesus said to him, “Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.”

You have the quotation a bit turned around, which may be causing your confusion. As you can see above, those who are not against you are for you.

I interpret it this way. Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the promised Messiah of God. He traveled, performed miracles, spoke in parables and narratives and generally set about His mission. There was plenty of opposition to what He was trying to accomplish- Pharisees, Romans, Jews, etc. They were constant hurdles which He and His apostles jumped throughout His ministry on earth.

When He received the news of the exorcist performing ostensibly good acts in His name it was a positive. It was one person not getting into His Way! So the exorcist was acting “for Him”.

 

[Sirach2]

I have the feeling that the apostles were somewhat jealous that others besides themselves were able to exercise their gifts. Jesus was responding to their poor attitude, chiding them with the response you quoted. We see the same attitude in Numbers 11:24-30.

24 So Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the tent. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied—but did not do so again.26 However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.”

28 Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses’ aide since youth, spoke up and said, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”

29 But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” 30 Then Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp.

 

[steymard]

And Obi Wan Kenobi responds “Only a Sith deals in absolutes”….

And honestly I agree with Obi Wan…why the absolutes? So, I’m hoping George Lucas is misinterpreting this verse.

Let’s try to keep this in-universe. I think the statement “only a Sith deals in absolutes” doesn’t actually fit the behaviour of Sith. Isn’t it only when Anakin is going to the dark side that he is able to ignore the moral law and rationalize killing children? Isn’t it Palpatine who tries to stir up the conflict of ideals and emotions within Luke to see power and hatred grow? Conversely, isn’t it Obi-Wan who opposes tyranny on principle? Isn’t it Luke who returns from the agonizing ambiguity of dark emotions to forgiving his father?

The intransigence of Dark Anakin in the final fight of episode 3 isn’t essentially Sith; it’s youthful idealism twisted in the wrong direction. No, there is one thing that could approach “absolute” with the Sith and that is Nietchze’s will to power. But in reality this will to power desires to overthrow all true absolutes - justice, goodness, beauty, etc., as well as the ramifications of these absolutes, such as freedom from coercion.

To put it another way, Sith only deal in absolutes as long as the ego is considered absolute - and nothing else is.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Well, Star Wars is fiction. George Bush used it leading up to the Iraq war.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Hi CAF! My very first thread, hope this goes well.

I wanted to know what Jesus meant exactly when he said this. If you are not with me, you are against me
Was there some audience he was addressing or some context that needs to be understood before taking this statement as is. There usually is. I got a book by Fr. Baron for Christmas and he only skirts the issue once, he doesn’t really go into too much detail.

My concern is that it really bothered me when these words left the mouth of Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars Episode III as he was turning into Darth Vader. And Obi Wan Kenobi responds “Only a Sith deals in absolutes”….

I know, I know professional geek in your midst
You can stop laughing at any time………………….:
Still laughing I see …………………….
I’ll wait ((((crosses arms)))…
Ahem!! You still have some tears in your eyes…
Truthfully, I’m laughing at me too…lol

I know it’s just a movie but someone paraphrasing Jesus’ words to illustrate a character’s complete transformation into pure evil didn’t sit well with me. And honestly I agree with Obi Wan…why the absolutes? So, I’m hoping George Lucas is misinterpreting this verse.
Any insights into this scripture verse would be helpful, Thanks in advance.

this makes sense to i because one has to be “good” and strive in virtue, grace, etc … to attain salvation in heaven, not ,I.E., to be lukewarm, proud, nice, “hateful,” against others God and stewardship.

God bless

 

[Jeanne1184]

Luke 9 (New American Bible, Revised Edition)

Another Exorcist
49 Then John said in reply, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company.” 50 Jesus said to him, “Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.”

You have the quotation a bit turned around, which may be causing your confusion. As you can see above, those who are not against you are for you.

I interpret it this way. Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the promised Messiah of God. He traveled, performed miracles, spoke in parables and narratives and generally set about His mission. There was plenty of opposition to what He was trying to accomplish- Pharisees, Romans, Jews, etc. They were constant hurdles which He and His apostles jumped throughout His ministry on earth.

When He received the news of the exorcist performing ostensibly good acts in His name it was a positive. It was one person not getting into His Way! So the exorcist was acting “for Him”.

This is my understanding as well. I also think there is ‘magic’ vs. miracles. That the ‘spirit’ inhabiting those doing wondrous things in Jesus’ name was different from the Holy Spirit of Jesus. The Apostles could tell the difference, but not the people duped at the time, but they may have sought the actual Jesus later.

Rev. 13:14 - And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life.

 

[edwest2]

It’s pretty clear.

biblehub.com/luke/10-16.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bodhi303]

(Sorry but I don’t know how to attach quotes yet so I’ll have to respond one by one)

Steymard–A fellow Star Wars fan!! Thanks for getting my “nerdiness” I loved your insight. Thorough and brilliant. Never read Nietzsche but that ideology makes more sense for the Sith. Very much helped in my understanding

May the Force be with you…

Chefmomster2
I may be the first person to say this on these forums…its so nice to be wrong. Your clarification made my day. Turning the quote around did cause my confusion. Thank you so much for a correct and mature understanding of that verse. I agree with the way you see this verse. Because of your insight tts now one of my favorites verse.

Thank you.

Sirach2

Thank you for connecting this verse to the Old Testament. One of my favorite things about God is he is so consistent . Relating this to the Old Testament gave me the ability to enjoy his consistency once more. Thanks for helping me to see it.

Could go on, for every response but “The Walking Dead” is on…so gotta be a geek
Thank you to all who took the time to help.

Happy St. Patty’s day to all.

 

[Sirach2]

Jeanne1184:

This is my understanding as well. I also think there is ‘magic’ vs. miracles. That the ‘spirit’ inhabiting those doing wondrous things in Jesus’ name** was different from the Holy Spirit of Jesus**. The Apostles could tell the difference, but not the people duped at the time, but they may have sought the actual Jesus later.

Let’s look at it another way, as I believe Jesus meant it.
"Then John said in reply, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company.” Jesus said to him, “Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.”

As a further reference, Jesus had this to say in Mt. 12:26, which supports the reality that an evil exorcist will never cast out one of his own:
*“And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?” *

I don’t believe the disciples “knew the difference” as you stated. Most likely, it was a bit of indignation that the works were demonstrated by those who were not of their company. Jesus chided them also on other occasions for their jealousy. Sometimes Catholics hold these attitudes when we see a Protestant use these gifts and are waaay to quick to label their gifts as false, or worse yet, demonic, yet they DO have the Holy Spirit from their baptism.

So Jesus warned them not to prevent these others, since they were “for you!”

The Bishops’ website interpreted this as follows: [scroll down to the comments area]

• 9:46–50] These two incidents focus on attitudes that are opposed to Christian discipleship: rivalry and intolerance of outsiders.

 

[Jeanne1184]

Let’s look at it another way, as I believe Jesus meant it.
"Then John said in reply, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company." Jesus said to him, “Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.”

As a further reference, Jesus had this to say in Mt. 12:26, which supports the reality that an evil exorcist will never cast out one of his own:

*“And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?” *

I don’t believe the disciples “knew the difference” as you stated. Most likely, it was a bit of indignation that the works were demonstrated by those who were not of their company. Jesus chided them also on other occasions for their jealousy. Sometimes Catholics hold these attitudes when we see a Protestant use these gifts and are waaay to quick to label their gifts as false, or worse yet, demonic, yet they DO have the Holy Spirit from their baptism.

So Jesus warned them not to prevent these others, since they were “for you!”

The Bishops’ website interpreted this as follows: [scroll down to the comments area]

• [9:46–50] These two incidents focus on attitudes that are opposed to Christian discipleship: rivalry and intolerance of outsiders.

Luke 9:49 Then John said in reply, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company.” 50 Jesus said to him, “Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.”

(KJV) Luke 9:49 - And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

((Not sure why someone would change “us” to “you”…? It changes the inference that Jesus does not claim the ‘exorcist’ as truly His, either.))

Mark 9:39 (KJV) - 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in My Name, that can lightly speak evil of Me.

I think this also connects to the verses:

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Because of this, I don’t doubt that some evangelists who do not truly belong to Jesus (Indwelling of the Holy Spirit) effect healings in His Name - the Holy Spirit of God can choose to show Mercy to the ‘patient’. But when the evangelist who is ‘borrowing’ Jesus’ Name to promote his own ends faces judgment, it might not go as well as he may suppose.

God, aware of those casting out demons in His Son’s name, may have honored His Son’s Name by exorcising the demon. However, that did not change the spiritual status of the unrepetent person acting unwisely. So, it wasn’t ‘Satan casting out his own demons’, but God honoring HIs Son’s Name and casting them out. (And, possibly, paving the way for the ‘patient’, as well as the false disciple, to become True Disciples.)

When Jesus died, His Spirit was no longer available to the Apostles until Pentecost. Peter and the 10 doing the drawing of lots to decide on a replacement for Judas was reverting back to a pagan/Fates practice. Seems to me, there is no dice-rolling, short-straw, or flipping of coins in Jesus’ ministry. Perhaps Jesus’ choice was actually Paul as the 12th.

I still believe that the Apostles could discern a false spirit operating in others by the True Spirit within themselves. Cuz the Bible tells me so.

Thanks for the discussion. I couldn’t reconcile “Satan casting out Satan” either until this post began to unfold, and you bringing up that point caused other pieces to shift into new places. Is it correct theology? I don’t know…it just feels like I’m headed in the right direction for more clarity in this area.

 

[Mintaka]

It was God who instituted the urim and thummim, so why shouldn’t the Apostles use them?

I know this is concealed by the usual translation of “lots,” but compare the Septuagint OT about urim and thummim to the Greek in Acts, and you’ll see that it’s the same.

 

[Sirach2]

Jeanne1184:

Because of this, I don’t doubt that some evangelists who do not truly belong to Jesus (Indwelling of the Holy Spirit) effect healings in His Name - the Holy Spirit of God can choose to show Mercy to the ‘patient’. But when the evangelist who is ‘borrowing’ Jesus’ Name to promote his own ends faces judgment, it might not go as well as he may suppose.

God, aware of those casting out demons in His Son’s name, may have honored His Son’s Name by exorcising the demon. However, that did not change the spiritual status of the unrepetent person acting unwisely. So, it wasn’t ‘Satan casting out his own demons’, but God honoring HIs Son’s Name and casting them out. (And, possibly, paving the way for the ‘patient’, as well as the false disciple, to become True Disciples.)
I still believe that the Apostles could discern a false spirit operating in others by the True Spirit within themselves. Cuz the Bible tells me so.

The bible does not tell you or I so. It is your own ideas that tell you so. The scripture is completely silent on the incident regarding false motives or discernment of the disciples, except that Jesus forbade the disciples not to prevent them, in an apparent acceptance of their exorcisms. I believe the scripture reveals the disciples’ hidden attitudes when it specifically spelled out that the exorcists “were not of their company.”

Your profile does not indicate your faith, except to say “bible.” Are you an independent person studying on your own? It would explain why you would not accept the Bishops’ interpretation of this verse that I posted earlier. Truth be told, I don’t know how you can claim your belief is a true understanding; i.e., that these men were “false disciples” and that the apostles supposedly discerned their purpose was dishonorable.

As for the True Spirit within the disciples, are you forgetting that they did not receive the Spirit until after Jesus ascended, through the outpouring at Pentecost?

But, to each their own — you do well not to promote it as *the only truth, * as long as a higher authority, such as our bishops, gave the true explanation.

 

[Jeanne1184]

It was God who instituted the urim and thummim, so why shouldn’t the Apostles use them?

I know this is concealed by the usual translation of “lots,” but compare the Septuagint OT about urim and thummim to the Greek in Acts, and you’ll see that it’s the same.

The actual Urim and Thummim were lost long before Christ, I’ve read. “Lots” are done a variety of ways (and they also “cast a lot” upon Christ’s garment):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy

From what I gather from Christ’s message, however, the Holy Spirit is now the ‘One-Stop Shop’.

 

[Jeanne1184]

The bible does not tell you or I so. It is your own ideas that tell you so.
Your profile does not indicate your faith, except to say “bible.” Are you an independent person studying on your own? It would explain why you would not accept the Bishops’ interpretation of this verse that I posted earlier. Truth be told, I don’t know how you can claim your belief is a true understanding; i.e., that these men were “false disciples” and that the apostles supposedly discerned their purpose was dishonorable. Jesus forbade the disciples not to prevent them, in an apparent acceptance of their exorcisms.

As for the True Spirit within the disciples, are you forgetting that they did not receive the Spirit until after Jesus ascended, through the outpouring at Pentecost?

But, to each their own — you do well not to promote it as factual as long as a higher authority, such as our bishops gave the true explanation.

I’m not sure why you object to ‘false disciples’ - they were copy-catting the Disciples.

As for the True Spirit within the disciples, are you forgetting that they did not receive the Spirit until after Jesus ascended, through the outpouring at Pentecost?

Good point - location of the Holy Spirit is an important distinction.

Just thoughts… The Apostles were given Authority to some degree - either by God or by Jesus - to participate in repentence and baptism of many, as well as cast out demons. When they ran up against a demon who wouldn’t cooperate, Jesus said, (Matt. 17:21) - “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”

Seems to me, however, that they wouldn’t have received the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit until Pentecost. That what Authority they were granted while Christ was on Earth, left with Him.

So, you may be right that they couldn’t ‘discern’ the falseness of the man doing exorcisims - but only knew he hadn’t been granted the Authority by Christ to do so.

Evidently, there were also sporadic revelations by God to some Apostles:

When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, ‘Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?’ So they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven’" (Matt. 16:13-17).

 

[Sirach2]

I’m not sure why you object to ‘false disciples’ - they were copy-catting the Disciples.

I don’t believe they were copy-catting, but happened to be going about their ministry and were observed by the disciples, who became indignant that others were entrusted to “their” ministry.

Just thoughts… The Apostles were given Authority to some degree - either by God or by Jesus - to participate in repentance and baptism of many, as well as cast out demons.

I am not aware that they were baptizing, since this was St. John the Baptist’s ministry. Jesus had not given them authority to baptize until after His resurrection, for the sacraments were not yet instituted. See Mt. 28:19

So, you may be right that they couldn’t ‘discern’ the falseness of the man doing exorcisms - but only knew he hadn’t been granted the Authority by Christ to do so.

Yet Christ permitted them to continue their ministry, despite His not having directly bestowed upon them His authority to cast out demons. Apparently, it came from their personal relationship with God the Father, such as Elijah had when he was able to raise the dead.

I did some reading on your background, Jeanne, and I am familiar with your walk. May God guide you back to Himself in the Church so that you can receive the Eucharist and be intimately united with Him in a more perfect way than you are now. You have the faith, just renew it and begin again. Come on home, dear! I too, was lost for many years, but then Jesus called me back to Himself. There is nothing on earth to compare with the joy of receiving Him in the Eucharist!

 

[Jeanne1184]

Sirach2;11810096 I don’t believe they were copy-catting, but happened to be going about their ministry and were observed by the disciples, who became indignant that others were entrusted to “their” ministry.

Let’s agree to disagree on this one.

I am not aware that they were baptizing, since this was St. John the Baptist’s ministry. Jesus had not given them authority to baptize until after His resurrection, for the sacraments were not yet instituted. See Mt. 28:19

John 4:1 - Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.

I did some reading on your background, Jeanne, and I am familiar with your walk. May God guide you back to Himself in the Church so that you can receive the Eucharist and be intimately united with Him in a more perfect way than you are now. You have the faith, just renew it and begin again. Come on home, dear! I too, was lost for many years, but then Jesus called me back to Himself. There is nothing on earth to compare with the joy of receiving Him in the Eucharist!

Glad we both made it home to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

 

[Sirach2]

Let’s agree to disagree on this one.

John 4:1 - Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3 So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.

I hear you, but please notice that this was a baptism of repentance, not sacramental baptism that removes original sin, for Jesus had not instituted the sacraments at that time. The disciples administered the same baptism as John the Baptist, but it was not done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Remember, the Holy Spirit had not been given, and Jesus did not instruct them to baptize in this manner until after His resurrection.

Glad we both made it home to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

By “home” I meant the Catholic Church and reception of the sacraments. . . NOT merely making a spiritual commitment of sorts to Jesus apart from His Church.

Somehow, I am getting the feeling that you are not truly hearing me, so I wish you well, Jeanne.