Did Christ offer a good defence?

[marco]

Let's examine Christ' defence in Mark 3:20-35 where he is accused not just by the teachers of Law but by his own family, despite Mary's earlier visitation by Gabriel and her virgin birth.

20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.�

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.�

23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."


Jesus defends himself by suggesting Satan cannot do good acts. But obviously were the presentation of an apparently good act to achieve a desired Satanic effect, then Satan would be wise enough to do it. Presumably he uses every meaans to achieve his purpose. So if Jesus were an agent of Satan, it would be in his interest to diagnose diabolic possession and cure what he has diagnosed.


Does Christ's weak defence cast doubt on Christ's identity?

Are these doubts strengthened by the views of those who knew Christ for some thirty years, much, much longer than did his followers?

Is the defence: A prophet goes unrecognised in his own land valid?

[JehovahsWitness]

let's...stop talking about unanimity among members of the family ...

Why? Are you going to stop implying it? Saying as you did that you know what Mary was thinking implies that they group decision allows no room for the individual within said group to do anything but agree; we call the absence of any disagreement unanimity. And that is the very basis for your conclusion.

• You continue to ignore the simple fact that without being modified, a group decision is not synonymous with an unanimous group decision.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

You've expressed your interpretation of Mark.

No I have not. I have been careful only to challenge yours. So kindly refrain from telling me what I think and what I believe. You may of course refer to what I've said.


JW

[marco]

You again ignore the simple fact that without being modified, a group decision is not synonymous with an unanimous group decision. [/list]

Maybe this can help you:
a) The family thought Jesus was mad.
b) Some of the family thought Jesus was mad.


Mark uses (a) not (b) You read his statement as if he had written (b).

Therefore you read Mark wrongly. Forget your "false dichotomy."

[JehovahsWitness]

You again ignore the simple fact that without being modified, a group decision is not synonymous with an unanimous group decision.

....
a) The family thought Jesus was mad.
b) Some of the family thought Jesus was mad.


Mark uses (a) not (b)

You attempt again and again to build your defence on a negative.

Mark doesn't tell us what colour of dress Mary wore. Would you expect him to?

Do you feel he should have mentioned each family member and given their individual thoughts on Christ?

• Yet once more, you suggest that the existence of less ambiguous options negates the ambiguity of the option chosen
• You repeatedly ignore the fact that Mark's failure to be catagoric (one way of the other) is what allows for alternative readings. This is rather like arguing that if someone didn't want anyone else to walk in the room he would have locked the door, which he didn't. And at the same time claiming nobody else could possibly have walked in on the room!
  
  By pointing out that Mark didn't make any comment as to if anyone in the group disagreed, when he could have, you are confirming his silence on the matter leaves a door open which he could have shut. It is irrational to argue there is no ambiguity and then explain how ambiguity could have been removed. And no less irrational to argue his ambiguity is definitive.

[marco]

He thus doesnt settle the issue, it is irrational to argue his ambiguity is definitive. You yourself are providing the rope to change you own arguement.

I wish you would refrain from using analogies which have no resemblance or relevance to the topic we are discussing. I'm not going to reply to stuff about locked doors. The simple point is that Mark wrote "the family was worried that Jesus was mad." He probably never thought some future reader would exclude Mary from his statement. It seems incredible that anyone would.

I have used the word "reasonable" several times - not unambiguous, nor definitive. It is reasonable to take it that Mark, in not saying SOME of the family, meant Mary, Joseph and anyone else in thefamily. It is reasonable to take it that Mary thought Jesus was insane. The opinion you express, given Mark's words, is not a reasonable one.

I am following what Mark has said and I feel I am following what Mark intended us to understand. If you feel we can exclude Mary, it looks as if you are in some way disagreeing with Mark, but that's got nothing to do with me. You are entitled to think what you want. It's possible Mark did make mistakes, but I don't see why we should think so on this occasion.

[JehovahsWitness]

THE SWOP

I have used the word "reasonable" several times - not unambiguous, nor definitive.

And right on schedule you return to trying to suggest my challenge was of your rational.

He gives us sufficient information for us to make an intelligent conclusion.

I see no reason to suppose Mark intended us to rule out Mary.

I said it is "reasonable" to accept Mary was included in Mark's statement.

• And you again you attemt to swop what was originally being challenged for your later statements, which gives the false impression I am challenging that rationale which I have at no point done. My issue was with your statement that the bible says that which it, at most can be seen as implying.

Do you deny having said the following?

....she thought him insane..

Because that is what I am challenging.

[JehovahsWitness]

THE BABY BATHWATER

It's possible Mark did make mistakes, but I don't see why we should think so on this occasion.

At no time have I suggested Marks account was inaccurate.

• This is not the first time you have attempted to buckle down your position by suggesting that my challenging your statement equates to calling Marks accuracy into question

Mark didn't say the following, you did.

....she thought him insane..

[marco]

At no time have I suggested Marks account was inaccurate.

Hmmm. Mark says: The family were anxious They thought Jesus insane.

Did Joseph think Jesus was insane? Nope - Mark does not say Joseph.

Did James think Jesus was insane? Nope. Mark does not say James.
Did Mary think Jesus was insane? Nope. Mark does not say Mary.


So poor Mark has made a completely empty, valueless statement, when we go by your viewpoint. I think that is harsh on Mark. Don't you?

[marco]

THE SWOP

I have used the word "reasonable" several times - not unambiguous, nor definitive.

And right on schedule you return to trying to suggest my challenge was of your rational.

By my rationale I have taken it that we can deduce Mary thought Jesus was insane. You do not fault my rationale. So why are we still continuing to discuss this?

[William]

marco: Does Christ's weak defence cast doubt on Christ's identity?

William: Publicly, it apparent did with many people.

marco:Are these doubts strengthened by the views of those who knew Christ for some thirty years, much, much longer than did his followers?

William: No. According to the Script, his follows were closer to him than those who knew him for some thirty years prior.
Sometime we think we know those closest to us, but what we really intimately know is
more often than not, a strawman personality we create to satisfy our own judgement about said person.

Those followers - It Is Written - were told a great deal more than Jesus told his blood relatives over 30 years. When blood relatives make judgement about who they think I am, it is not actually me that their judgement falls on, but a type of effigy they have created which projects who they think that I am.

It is a common thing. Its all in their mind. It may even be argued that such practice itself is a sign of insanity, yes?

marco:Is the defence: A prophet goes unrecognised in his own land valid?

William: In as much as Jung's idea of projection takes us down the same path, yes.