Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DoubtingDave · 02-17-2012, 09:04 AM

I saw this contradiction at the Skeptics Annotated Bible and am having a difficult time understanding if it is or is not a contradiction.

Matthew 12:30, "He that is not with me is against me."
Luke 9:50, "For he that is not against us is on our part."

I can't tell if this is a contradiction or Jesus saying the same thing a different way. See this response to see what I mean.

Huon · 02-17-2012, 09:54 AM

The logic of the quote is very poor. It is opposing "Those who are wearing white jerseys" and "Those who are not wearing white jerseys".

But this does not represent the situation of Matthew and Luke.

In the NT, there are "He that is not with me", "He that is not against us", AND those who are neither with me nor against us, for instance the Chinese who did not hear of Matt and Luke.

According to Matthew, the Chinese are "against me".
According to Luke, the Chinese are "on our part".

DoubtingDave · 02-17-2012, 10:16 AM

Huon, thank you for your response. Of course, Christian theology would state that anyone who does not accept Jesus is automatically against him.

Toto · 02-17-2012, 10:28 AM

Did you know that there is a wikipedia article on

Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible? I can't believe that apologists have allowed it to stand.

It discusses this contradiction and the somewhat pathetic attempts to get around it:

Quote:

In Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointed out another conflict, between Matthew 12:30 /Luke 11:23 ("He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters") and Mark 9:40 /Luke 9:50 ("For he who is not against us [you] is for us [you]"). Bonhoeffer called these two sayings "the claim to exclusiveness and the claim to totality". He argued that both are necessary and that "The cross of Christ makes both sayings true."^[40] D.A. Carson commented similarly, adding he thought there are two different contexts where Mark 9:40 /Luke 9:50 describe the attitude listeners are to have to other possible disciples: when in doubt, be inclusive, while Matthew 12:30 /Luke 11:23 describe the standard listeners should apply to themselves: be in no doubt of one's own standing.^[41] Other commentaries argue that, juxtaposed, the sayings declare the impossibility of neutrality.^[42]

Modern New Testament scholarship tends to view these not as separate statements, but rather one statement that has either been preserved in two different forms, or which has been altered by the Gospel writers to present a point of view expressing the needs of the Christian community at the time.^[43] The Gospel of Mark, generally considered the earliest of the Gospels, presents the 'inclusive' formulation, in association with an account of Jesus rebuking his followers for stopping someone from carrying out exorcisms in his name. The Gospel of Matthew has the other, 'exclusive' version, preceded by a story about a strong man; the Gospel of Mark also includes this story, but without the concluding observation. The Luke version presents both versions. There is still lively discussion about which version is the more authentic,^[43][44]

...

[40] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "Ethics", p. 60-61, Touchstone; (September 1, 1995 reprint of his 1943 book) ISBN 068481501X
[41] D.A. Carson, Commentary on Matthew, Expositor's Bible Commentary CDROM, Zondervan, 1989-97
[42] See the commentaries by McGarvey on Mk 9:40, Johnson on Mt 12:30, and Brown on Lk 11:23.
[43] a b R. Alan Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend, Continuum International Publishing (2000), pages 41-43.
[44] Ian H. Henderson, Jesus, Rhetoric and Law, Brill (1996), pages 333-334; William David Davies, Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Continuum International Publishing (2004), page 333-334.

DoubtingDave · 02-18-2012, 06:24 PM

Interesting. Thank you for the wikipedia link. Im surprised apologists aren't all over that page.

sotto voce · 02-19-2012, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kohai

I saw this contradiction at the Skeptics Annotated Bible and am having a difficult time understanding if it is or is not a contradiction.

Matthew 12:30, "He that is not with me is against me."
Luke 9:50, "For he that is not against us is on our part."

I can't tell if this is a contradiction or Jesus saying the same thing a different way.

If the Bible from Genesis 3 onwards is to be believed, it's the latter. If all people are either for or against Jesus, then both statements are correct. Throughout the Bible, there is simple choice to be made. Moral choice. There are no grey areas, there is no middle ground. One is given time to choose, but, sooner or later, one must choose.

'"See, this child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed... to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed."' Lk 2:34-35 ed.

The biblical view is that Jesus was, and remains, the touchstone of moral quality upon whom eternal destiny depends.

Huon · 02-19-2012, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kohai

Interesting. Thank you for the wikipedia link. Im surprised apologists aren't all over that page.

Now, you have got one. There are no grey areas, there is no middle ground.

Sheshbazzar · 02-19-2012, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

If the Bible from Genesis 3 onwards is to be believed, it's the latter. If all people are either for or against Jesus, then both statements are correct. Throughout the Bible, there is simple choice to be made. Moral choice. There are no grey areas, there is no middle ground. One is given time to choose, but, sooner or later, one must choose.

'"See, this child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed... to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed."' Lk 2:34-35 ed.

The biblical view is that Jesus was, and remains, the touchstone of moral quality upon whom eternal destiny depends.

Use your 'touchstone of moral quality' to deal with this 'no gray areas' 'moral choice' sotto.

Quote:

33. And יהוה spoke unto Moses, saying;

34. Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'The Fifteenth Day of this Seventh Month shall be the Feast of Tabernacles for seven days unto יהוה.

35. 'On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall do no ordinary work in it.

36. For seven days you shall offer an offering made by fire unto יהוה
On the eighth day you shall have a holy convocation, and you shall offer an offering made by fire unto יהוה. It is a sacred assembly, and you shall do no ordinary work on it.

39. Also in The Fifteenth Day of the Seventh month, when you have gathered in the fruit of the land, you shall keep a Feast unto יהוה Seven Days: The first day shall be a Sabbath, and on the Eighth Day shall be a Sabbath.

40. And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of beautiful trees, branches of palm trees, the boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before יהוה your El for seven days.

41. You shall keep it as a Feast unto יהוה for Seven Days in the year. It shall be a statute forever in your generations.
You shall celebrate it in The Seventh Month. (Leviticus 23:34-41)
__________________________________________________ _______________

16. And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all of the Nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King יהוה צבאות , and KEEP the Feast of Tabernacles.

17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, יהוה צבאות , on them there will be no rain.

18. If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which יהוה strikes the Nations who do not come up to KEEP the Feast of Tabernacles.

19. This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the Nations that do not come up to KEEP the Feast of Tabernacles. (Zechariah 14:16-19)

ששבצר העברי
Sheshbazzar The Hebrew

Chili · 02-19-2012, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kohai

Huon, thank you for your response. Of course, Christian theology would state that anyone who does not accept Jesus is automatically against him.

Nice point you make here. Let me add that "Christian theology" must necessarily be wrong simply because a theologian is a student of theology and 'does not know' while a Christian with the mind of God already knows.

And yes, self proclaimed Christians along the imperative of Matthew and of Mark 'accept Jesus' as [the only] article of faith and hold that unless you are a Christian you are against them and a potential are a target for them to be converted, or else you are a threat to their demise. Much like Islam, for sure.

Luke, on the other hand, says "For he that is not against us is on our part" to say that we are 'priviledged to be one' and 'our only enemy' are those who are against us.

The short form solution here is to call Matthew's Christians 'lukewarm' and Luke's either 'hot or cold' and only hated by the 'lukewarm' who walked away from Jesus already in John 6:66 and those are still many today.

And so yes! he would say a Buddhist is OK and why not?

Always keep in mind that "the great commision' is only part of Matthew and of Mark but not of Luke and John where "he first showed his wounds to them" and then said: "AS I am aso I am sending you", to say that unless you are like me you should not go and preach yourself.

So it is a very simple answer, and Bonhoeffer just doesn't know.

02-17-2012, 09:04 AM	#1
DoubtingDave Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Conowingo, Maryland Posts: 577	Who is for/against Jesus? I saw this contradiction at the Skeptics Annotated Bible and am having a difficult time understanding if it is or is not a contradiction. Matthew 12:30, "He that is not with me is against me." Luke 9:50, "For he that is not against us is on our part." I can't tell if this is a contradiction or Jesus saying the same thing a different way. See this response to see what I mean.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2012, 09:54 AM	#2
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	The logic of the quote is very poor. It is opposing "Those who are wearing white jerseys" and "Those who are not wearing white jerseys". But this does not represent the situation of Matthew and Luke. In the NT, there are "He that is not with me", "He that is not against us", AND those who are neither with me nor against us, for instance the Chinese who did not hear of Matt and Luke. According to Matthew, the Chinese are "against me". According to Luke, the Chinese are "on our part".

02-17-2012, 10:16 AM	#3
DoubtingDave Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Conowingo, Maryland Posts: 577	Huon, thank you for your response. Of course, Christian theology would state that anyone who does not accept Jesus is automatically against him.

02-18-2012, 06:24 PM	#5
DoubtingDave Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Conowingo, Maryland Posts: 577	Interesting. Thank you for the wikipedia link. Im surprised apologists aren't all over that page.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.