Jesus said;- You cannot be neutral

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew ch12 v30)
“For he that is not against us is for us” (Mark ch9 v40)

I hold in my hand a penny.

“Old money”, of course, pre-decimal, twelve to the shilling. Queen’s head on one side, Britannia and her trident on the other. It makes the visual point better than one of Harold Wilson’s tiddlers.

If I flip the coin into the air and allow it to land, it will show either “Heads” or “Tails”. The result will vary, since I am not a character in “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead”, but it will always be one or the other.
[P.S. I've just tested. 7-3 for Heads]

This can be expressed in two different statements;
“If the coin does not land ‘Heads’, it lands ‘Tails’”
“If the coin does not land ‘Tails’, it lands ‘Heads.”
Clearly there is no contradiction or disagreement there. They are just differently ordered ways of saying the same thing. The point being that the coin never rests on its edge.

In the same way, the two statements quoted at the top of the page are counterparts, giving the same meaning in reverse order. This would have been more obvious if the word in Mark had been “with” instead of “for”;
“He who is not with me is against me.”
“He that is not against us is with us”.
You are either friendly or hostile. There is no such thing as neutrality.

As far as I’m concerned, then, these quotations are two sides of the same coin.

Yet people are always claiming to be able to see a contradiction between them. I’ve never seen one myself, and I really struggle to understand how anybody else can see one. So I’m having one more go at solving the mystery.

It seems to come down to the question of “neutrality”. Even some of the commentators have managed to convince themselves that Jesus is giving us two different ways of treating neutrals. So Cranfield (in his commentary on Mark) describes the principle of the Matthew verse as “to be neutral toward Jesus is to have decided against him”.

That interpretation is only possible if the verse is taken in isolation. In the context of Matthew ch12 (and in the equivalent location in Luke) it is part of the response of Jesus to the “he casts out demons by Beelzebub” slander of the Pharisees. It is the Pharisees who are “not-with” him, and they are not neutral. They are actively hostile. The concept of neutrality “don’t enter into it”.

And again, if we look at the context of the Mark verse, we find that Jesus is talking about “the man who was casting out demons in your name”. But that man isn’t being neutral either. If he is working in the name of Jesus, then he is actively friendly. The concept of neutrality “don’t enter into it.”

In fact his willingness to accept the man echoes the verdict that Moses gave, on that occasion when he gathered the elders of Israel to receive the Spirit of the Lord and prophesy (Numbers ch11 vv24-30). The Spirit also rested on two men who had remained in the camp, and they also prophesied. Joshua wanted Moses to forbid them, but Moses said “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them”. The point was that “being on the Lord’s side” was not about physical location, but about the presence of his Spirit.

I think part of the problem, in the case of the Mark verse, is that Jesus says “for us” when he might have said “with us”, which means the same thing. This makes it possible for people to be unconsciously led astray by the “physical presence” meaning of the English word “with”. Then the man who casts out demons can be seen as “not-with” Jesus, because he is in a different location. Once that idea has taken hold of the mind, there’s an apparent contradiction between the “not-withs” of Matthew, who are labelled “against me”, and the “not-with” of Mark, who is labelled “for us”. When we appreciate that “with” is about friendly collaboration, sharing the same Spirit, then the contradiction disappears.

Those commentators who do see a “different treatment of neutrals” try to find ways of harmonising the difference. For example, the “tolerant” view of Mark should be applied by others, while a man should apply the “sterner” view of Matthew to himself. Or Matthew is the verdict of the final judgment, while Mark should be applied in the interim.

The real solution is to recognise that neutrality “don’t enter into it”.
Matthew says “If you are actively hostile towards what Jesus is doing, then Jesus will regard you as hostile”.
Mark says “If you are actively friendly towards what Jesus is doing, then Jesus will regard you as friendly.”
You cannot find any contradiction between those two declarations, unless you are actively looking for one.

"Only a sith deals in absolutes" - Obi Wan Kenobi

a reply to: DISRAELI

Also comes down to sovereignty, God can’t actively force on another’s will?
A neutral by definition is not for or against, so actively, inactive.

Christianity is a free choice, “choose life”, love is not and can never be force, if God is love then he is subject to our choices, don’t choose Him and He won’t interfere with that choice. Choose Him and as opposed to the phaorah, God will actively soften His followers hearts not harden them

An invitation has been offered, it needs to be replied to.
The gospel, the Christian message, the “deeds” commanded are given only to Christians, not non Christians, it’s not a book of rules for everyone

I see many Christians try and force their faith on others though others have made no decision, no choice, that is not Christianity. God can not change a non interested spirit, no Holy Spirit, no fruit

Though, we are called to love people, call them into community by love, existentially, be Jesus to the world when Jesus is doing whatever He is doing

a reply to: TzarChasm
That statement is an absolute.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TzarChasm
That statement is an absolute.

"Generally speaking it's a Sith practice to deal in absolutes, except for a couple times when someone was given a somewhat problematic script" - Obi Wan Kenobi, in a parallel reality where his actor improvised to more intelligently convey a rather contradictory message that had a valid point but was forever attracting the ire of pedantic nerds

Fixed it for you.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Thank you. Not interested.

a reply to: DISRAELI

But I would really like to be neutral.
Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12, WEB

1Now concerning spiritual things, brothers, I don't want you to be ignorant. 2You know that when you were heathen, you were led away to those mute idols, however you might be led. 3Therefore I make known to you that no man speaking by God's Spirit says, "Jesus is accursed." No one can say, "Jesus is Lord," but by the Holy Spirit.

So what if a heathen says neither one of those things?

My reasoning is that non-Holy Spirit people see things as they are naturally. It's easier to see people homeless and hungry than it is to see people demon possessed.

Christian charities that help those in need don't have any problem with taking money from heathens. It does go for good. That's not to say that heathens should just go willy-nilly giving money to any fly by night outfit. Nowadays there are on-line resources for evaluating the percentage that goes for good.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TzarChasm
Thank you. Not interested.

Like that changes anything? In all seriousness, your message is quite toxic. "with me or against me" is an abusive sentiment that presents the illusion of only two options, the "easy way" or the "hard way" and that's classically referred to as a false dichotomy. You see it in bad relationships all the time.

a reply to: pthena
Your argument seems to be that "helping the hungry" is a modern or rational equivalent of "exorcising demons".
In other words, a version of "doing the same work as Jesus".
In other words, being friendly towards what Jesus is doing.
So it's not really being "neutral" after all..
It's a question of attitude.

a reply to: TzarChasm
Your reaction does not change anything. I'm still not interested.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TzarChasm
Your reaction does not change anything. I'm still not interested.

Jesus was open to discussion with all types of riffraff. I guess you aren't interested in genuine dialogue, just echoes of your own ideas.

a reply to: TzarChasm
He did not advocate continuing discussion indefinitely. "Shake off the dust from your feet... Cast not your pearls before swine", etc.

May I point out also that this is the Theology forum. Theology is not about arguing for and against religion with non-believers. That's for "conspiracy in religion".
Theology is about discussing with fellow-believers the details of what religion is saying. Hostile debate with non-believers is out of place. So, for the last time, I'm not interested.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TzarChasm
He did not advocate continuing discussion indefinitely. "Shake off the dust from your feet... Cast not your pearls before swine", etc.

He also mentioned charlatans using his words falsely to preach bad lessons. Using quotes is for plebs who think rote memorization is an adequate substitute for critical thinking skills. No wonder you are pushing toxic relationship values.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
He also mentioned charlatans using his words falsely to preach bad lessons. Using quotes is for plebs who think rote memorization is an adequate substitute for critical thinking skills.

You began this discussion by using a quote. You have defined yourself as a pleb. Well done.
See also amended post above, which is my last word.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well, one needs to be stupid to be against Jesus.

Because Jesus never said something wrong or made a mistake. The man with the highest IQ and the biggest fan club ever. He wasn't just a man. I mean He is.

Sometimes its better to submit to the currents or waves, rather then be drowned in them.

Would the enemy of thy enemy really be your friend? Does going to church on Saturndays, make me a terrible person.

a reply to: Raggedyman

No. God could change an uninterested spirit, but if He did, that would make the person in question not much more than a slave. God already has the angels who are more or less required to love Him. In man, He wanted something different and created us to make the conscious and free choice.

While I very much think He could compel us, He would not be God if He did.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Jesus said;- You cannot be neutral

At least I got one thing right. I'm not neutral.

A man cannot have two masters. He will love one, and hate the other, or vice versa.

People now are self serving. They chase money and material things

2nd Timothy 3:1 But understand this: In the last days terrible times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good,…

This is a picture of the world today. Its going to be a rough ride. Buckle up Christians! Armor up!

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Matthew 7:21

So belief in Jesus is misinterpreted by the "many". So rather that accept the universal interpretation of belief, one has to dig much deeper. Why is it that Jesus said "I never knew you". How were we suppose to know Jesus if its not by reading and following scripture. Note that "he that doeth" is also used, masculine points to ethereal essense whereas feminine points material essense.

We know from Geneisis that Adam (masculine = ethereal) was made in the image of God. So Adam being the image of the Father could also be seen as the Son of the Father. Is this the key to understanding Jesus as the Son of the Father in Christianity. This suggests that only those that seek refuge in the image of God within ourselves (aka soul) can actually be with Jesus.

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come

Those that don't seek refuge in the altruistic soul will die in the egotistical mind (Whoever not with me is against me, whoever does not gather scatters)

Those that exist as egotistical mind will not be forgiven (aka surely die). (Blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven)

Those that dont accept universal truth will never seek refuge in the soul. [anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come).