What Does This Mean?

[Macrina]

Getting back to the origianal verses.

Luke 9:49-50

49 "Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."

50 "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."

In the Greek this word "for" (also translated "with" ) is meta. Meta governs two cases (the Genitive and the Accusative) and denotes association and companionship with. It thus differs from sun which denotes proximilty to, and hence conjunction or coherence.

[Mark Templet]

50 "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."

In the Greek this word "for" (also translated "with" ) is meta. Meta governs two cases (the Genitive and the Accusative) and denotes association and companionship with. It thus differs from sun which denotes proximilty to, and hence conjunction or coherence.

Actually the Greek word rendered in this verse as "is not agaist you is for you" is not meta, rather it is: γὰρ οὐκ ἐστιν καθ’ ὑμῶν, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν.
A transliteration of which would be: "for not is against you for you is." (sound like Master Yoda)

I don't know if it matters to your point, but I am a nut when it comes to quoting the original Holy Scriptures in Greek.

[Macrina]

Sorry Master Yoda. I was looking at the wrong verse. My bad. It is εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν Ἰησοῦς μὴ κωλύετε ὃς γὰρ οὐκ ἐστιν καθ’ ὑμῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν (or in English alphabet - eipen de pros auton iesous me koluete os gar ouk estin kath umon uper umon estin) transliterated "said also unto him Jesus not hinder who for not is against you for you is. Luke 9:50

Bearing in mind the importance St Basil put on prepositions, then what is your impression of the preposition "uper" used in that verse.
I believe that Jesus was indicating fellowship generally speaking. So the preposition "uper" is in the sense of meaning in behalf of. Some examples would be, John 11:50, 18:14, Rom. 5:6, 1 Tim. 2:6, Philem.13, 1 Peter 3:18 used in the sense of in place of, and 2 Thess. 2:1 in the sense of in the interest of, Matt. 5:44, Acts 9:16 in behalf of, and John 11:4, Rom 15:8, 2 Cor. 12:19, Phil. 2:13 for the purpose of.

My point being that I do not see how this simple understanding of fellowship should be changed with or by an authoritative earthly institution such as the religious guidelines of the church in the world.

[Mark Templet]

I think it means exactly what it says-- that those who are not against us are for us. But surely we have to make the determination that the Church must define what it means to be "for us." For instance, the Arians worshiped Jesus and God, they did the Liturgy and everything, and yet they were kicked out of the Church at the First Ecumenical Council. Clearly, the Holy Spirit led the Church to the truth that what the Arians were doing was actually NOT for Christ, but against Him. Thus the way it has been with all heresy. Let's recall that it is the Church which is the "pillar and ground of truth."(1 Tim. 3:15)
So not everyone who claims that they are "for Jesus" really is, the criteria is certainly the fruits of their faith (their works). The Arians were bent on de-deifying Jesus. Today the World Orthodox are bent on betraying Orthodoxy by being members of the World Council of Churches. Read the WCC constitution and you can see what I mean:
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/d ... opted.html
These so-called Orthodox Patriarch and heirarchs signed onto this agreement.

Like I have always said, you can't change the calendar the Church has used for 1920+ years; you can't advocate that the Church should involve herself in organizations that presume equality of belief between the Orthodox and the heterodox. You can't do these things and call yourself "Orthodox." Orthodox means that the faith is already established; that the die is cast and that there is no need to monkey with anything. I don't know what it is that they are doing, but it cannot be termed "Orthodox" when it is counter to that which came before.
There is a great article about this on our site as well.
http://www.roacusa.org/WhyTrueOrtho.pdf

[Macrina]

Since you said that it doesn't matter what patriarchates do then what's the problem. I'm sure there are plenty of people like me who don't want to be part of any world council of anything.

As for "calendars", the scriptures state that Christians aren't suppose to follow calendars.

Gal 4:9-11 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

[GOCPriestMark]

As for "calendars", the scriptures state that Christians aren't suppose to follow calendars.

That is an interesting conclusion to draw from the Scripture you quoted. Perhaps, if you would ask the question; "Which days and months and times and seasons were they observing?" your conclusion might be different. St. John Chrysostom states; "Hence is plain that their teachers were preaching to them not only circumcision, but also the feast-days and new-moons." From this it would seem that St. John is saying that it was the things of The Law, which had passed, that they were observing.

It should be obvious that the Orthodox Church uses a calendar to remember important days and seasons of both repentance and festivity and that this is in no way displeasing to God.

[Mark Templet]

Gal 4:9-11 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Your interpretation of this verse flies in the face of the Tradition of the Church. If your assertion is that we are to have no calendar, or rather no cycle of the Church year then you must deal with the fact that from the very beginning this was not so in Christianity. In fact, this is one of the issues that the Church found it necessary to deal with at the First Ecumenical Council, they indeed had to conform within a uniform agreement with what day each year to celebrate Pascha. According to your interpretation there should be no commemoration of Pascha then? Because to celebrate it at any time means the use of some determination of the passage of time-- aka a calendar. Why do we gather for services on "the Lord's Day" as the Holy Scriptures call Sunday? The simple fact is that the Church has to have a calendar and they choose it.

I think if you go back and read that entire chapter over again you will see that Saint Paul is not warning Christians against having a calendar, rather he is warning these early Jewish Christians to not Judaize Christianity by conforming their sanctification of time to the Old Covenant but to conform the New Covenant.

The Tradition of the Church is quite explicit on the regulation of the Church year and her cycles in her Holy Canons. You should be very careful with a statement like "the scriptures state that Christians aren't suppose to follow calendars." Such a statement is not supported by any early Apostolic understanding or example. Let us recall that Christ was a devout Jew who kept the Jewish holy days and feasts.

Perhaps you should clarify your statement.