Luke 9:49
#1
I've always wondered whom this was referring to.

[quote]

And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.  And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you.

[\quote]

Growing up I always thought it meant good devout Christians of other denominations spreading the word of God.  It made sense in this manner as they were not one of "us", but they are baptizing and spreading the word of God.

To whom does this passage actually relate to?
Reply
#2
I think it is more simple than that.

The Church had not been founded, and any one could have followed Christ. If someone were casting out devil's in Jesus's name, it could be a case of someone praying in the name of Jesus and using His name. It isn't someone preaching contrary to Him in His name like it is today.

Other "denominations" didn't exist yet and the concept would have been very foreign. 
Reply
#3
[quote='geogeer' pid='370533' dateline='1242886044']
I've always wondered whom this was referring to.

[quote]

And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.  And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you.

[\quote]

Growing up I always thought it meant good devout Christians of other denominations spreading the word of God.  It made sense in this manner as they were not one of "us", but they are baptizing and spreading the word of God.

To whom does this passage actually relate to?
[/quote]

The passage have to be interpreted in the view of

Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

Albert Schweitzer Lutheran doctor healing in Africa was a good men. Those who are against the unity of the Church are bad people.
Reply
#4
(05-21-2009, 07:03 AM)Rosarium Wrote: I think it is more simple than that.

The Church had not been founded, and any one could have followed Christ. If someone were casting out devil's in Jesus's name, it could be a case of someone praying in the name of Jesus and using His name. It isn't someone preaching contrary to Him in His name like it is today.

Other "denominations" didn't exist yet and the concept would have been very foreign. 

Just to play devil's advocate...

This man still could have been active after Jesus' death and resurrection yet not part of the "church".  Would he suddenly be considered schismatic? heretic?  Additionally, Jesus did not say let him be until after my hour has come or any kind of thing implying some kind of limitation on the directive.  Maybe it only applies to the orthodox churches???  Those initially writing down the text of the bibles thought it important enough to include, so I would assume that it was understood to be a long term directive and not a passing quip.
Reply
#5
(05-21-2009, 12:45 PM)geogeer Wrote: This man still could have been active after Jesus' death and resurrection yet not part of the "church".  Would he suddenly be considered schismatic? heretic?  Additionally, Jesus did not say let him be until after my hour has come or any kind of thing implying some kind of limitation on the directive.  Maybe it only applies to the orthodox churches???  Those initially writing down the text of the bibles thought it important enough to include, so I would assume that it was understood to be a long term directive and not a passing quip.

No, there is no reason to assume it is a long term directive.

Jesus allowed it, so it must have been fine. We also have no idea what he was actually doing. What Jesus taught could be accepted by anyone. Romans, slaves, tax collectors, Samaritans, Jews, etc all accepted His words in the Bible and followed Him. This mystery person could not have been in the wrong, as he was not restricted by Jesus, so he must have been acting lawfully. By casting out devils, he would be praying right? Using Jesus's name while praying is perfectly acceptable. If this person were also a devout Jew who accepted Christ, it would have made perfect sense. He didn't follow Christ like the disciples at that time, yet he obviously knew of the truth to some degree. Look at Paul. He did the exact same thing as this person. He was not connected to the disciples, yet was informed of the truth by some other means and preached and converted before meeting with them. He, like this person mentioned, did not preach contrary to Jesus or the Church and followed the truth. He wasn't doing his own little thing by his own will.

Like my rosary site. I'm doing something because of the faith on my own (and thanks to those who assist me after I started). It is perfectly acceptable. I didn't need to get the bishop's permission to do this.
Reply
#6
:nonsum:
Reply
#7
(05-21-2009, 12:45 PM)geogeer Wrote: This man still could have been active after Jesus' death and resurrection yet not part of the "church".  Would he suddenly be considered schismatic? heretic?  Additionally, Jesus did not say let him be until after my hour has come or any kind of thing implying some kind of limitation on the directive.  Maybe it only applies to the orthodox churches???  Those initially writing down the text of the bibles thought it important enough to include, so I would assume that it was understood to be a long term directive and not a passing quip.

Historial example is Simon Magus Acts 8:6-25; Eusebius Chruch History Boo2 Ch 13 ff http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

Yes, he was considered the father of all heresies. Not immediately, and not exclusively for teaching outside of the Church, but for the consequences of 'not abiding'
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)