"Whoever is not with me is against me" vs "Whoever is not against you is for you"

[tonychanyt]

Luke 9:50b the one who is not against you is for you.

I interpret "for you" as "for Jesus".

Let proposition A = a person is against Jesus.
F = a person is for Jesus.

In terms of first-order logic:
Luke 9:50b says ¬A → F = L9b. If a person is not against Jesus, then he is for Jesus.

Formally, ¬A → F ⇒ ¬F → A. I.e., applying contraposition, we have ¬F → A = L9bC. If a person is not for Jesus, then he is against Jesus.

Now, let's turn to
Luke 11:23a Whoever is not with me is against me,

Let proposition W = a person is with Jesus.
Luke 11:23a says ¬W → A

The context of Luke 11:23 suggests the following:
If a person is with Jesus, then he is for Jesus.
I.e., W → F

Replacing W with F, Luke 11:23a says ¬F → A = L11.

Now we see that L9bC ≡ L11. Therefore, Luke 9:50b and Luke 11:23a are logically equivalent (⇔).

 

[Mark Quayle]

You might could translate that for logical people like me. I haven't studied Formal logic with symbols.

One thing that comes to mind, though, reading that, is that old ways of teaching sometimes included "sayings" —not always so much factual statements, but statements made to consider and contrast with other relevant statements. For an example, in Proverbs we find side-by-side, "Answer not a fool according to his folly" and "Answer a fool according to his folly" with reasons given for each.

 

[tonychanyt]

in Proverbs we find side-by-side, "Answer not a fool according to his folly" and "Answer a fool according to his folly" with reasons given for each.

See Contradiction: Answer a fool according to his folly or not

 

[public hermit]

Luke 9:50b the one who is not against you is for you.

Let proposition A = a person is against Jesus.
F = a person is for Jesus.

In terms of first-order logic:
Luke 9:50b says ¬A → F = L9b. If a person is not against Jesus, then he is for Jesus.

Formally, ¬A → F ⇒ ¬F → A. I.e., applying contraposition, we have ¬F → A = L9bC. If a person is not for Jesus, then he is against Jesus.

Now, let's turn to
Luke 11:23a Whoever is not with me is against me,

Let proposition W = a person is with Jesus.
Luke 11:23a says ¬W → A

The context of Luke 11:23 suggests the following:
If a person is with Jesus, then he is for Jesus.
I.e., W → F

Replacing W with F, Luke 11:23a says ¬F → A = L11.

Now we see that L9bC ≡ L11. Therefore, Luke 9:50b and Luke 11:23a are logically equivalent (⇔).

Excellent work.

Is the "you" in 9:50 a reference to Jesus or to his followers (pace John's statement in 9:49)? I would say the latter since it's a genitive plural.

The implication being the person who cast out a demon in Jesus's name was not a follower ("he does not follow with us").

If one is not against the followers is one with the followers? That's an interesting question.

 

[tonychanyt]

Is the "you" in 9:50 a reference to Jesus or to his followers (pace John's statement in 9:49)? I would say the latter since it's a genitive plural.

I agree.

The implication being the person who cast out a demon in Jesus's name was not a follower ("he does not follow with us").

Right.

If one is not against the followers is one with the followers? That's an interesting question.

Indeed. I think at least some are.

On the other hand, we have
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

 

[Mark Quayle]

See Contradiction: Answer a fool according to his folly or not

Yes, thus, not a contradiction, but a teaching method. Contrasting statements for consideration.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Luke 9:50b the one who is not against you is for you.

Let proposition A = a person is against Jesus.
F = a person is for Jesus.

In terms of first-order logic:
Luke 9:50b says ¬A → F = L9b. If a person is not against Jesus, then he is for Jesus.

Your L9b says: The one who is not against Jesus is for Jesus.
But Jesus said: the one who is not against you is for you.
¬AY → FY is not the same as ¬AJ → FJ

There is still the possibility that one is not against the disciples, but also not for Jesus.

Now we see that L9bC ≡ L11. Therefore, Luke 9:50b and Luke 11:23a are logically equivalent (⇔).

Only if you don't make a difference between Jesus ans His disciples.

Lk 9:50 warns the disciples not to consider anyone hostile that does not want to join them, but stays somewhat »neutral«.
Lk 11:23 warns persons that think they can be neutral to Jesus that such neutrality is hostility to him in fact.

 

[tonychanyt]

Your L9b says: The one who is not against Jesus is for Jesus.
But Jesus said: the one who is not against you is for you.

Good point. I interpreted

What is your formal training?

 

[Helmut-WK]

Good point. I interpreted

What is your formal training?

German high school, scientific-mathematical branch - i.e. English the only foreign language learned (to be true: some Latin also, but I can't express myself in that language ), but emphasis on math and (natural) science (especially physics, I opted for it as the other main course beside mathematics in the 12th and 13th grade).

 

[tonychanyt]

German high school, scientific-mathematical branch - i.e. English the only foreign language learned (to be true: some Latin also, but I can't express myself in that language ), but emphasis on math and (natural) science (especially physics, I opted for it as the other main course beside mathematics in the 12th and 13th grade).

That's it? No university? You are a natural

 

[Helmut-WK]

That's it? No university?

Linguistics and informatics. But not much about formal logic there, AFAIR that was only sort of repeating of the math course in school.

You are a natural

I rather think I got a better education at school.