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]

THE SWAP

Trying to exchange this....

....she thought him insane..

For these....

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

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.

By my rationale I have taken it that we can deduce Mary thought Jesus was insane.

• And you again you attemt to swap 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.

....she thought him insane..

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 80 by JehovahsWitness]

...You do not fault my rationale. So why are we still continuing to discuss this?

I didn't say I did not "fault your rationale", I said I did not challenge it (you cannot do with me what you are attempting to do with Mark and attribute to me what I have not said). We continue to discuss and will continue to discuss because you have not once addressed the statement I am challenging you about. Here they are in case you have forgotten...

#1 The challenge

...she thought him insane.

#2 And my challenge is based on this grammatical fact:

Regardless of whether there are alternatives expressions which would eliminate any doubt one way or the other, the fact is ... family without the modifier, allows that some members of said family did not share the sentiment

JW



BABY BATHWATER : Attempts to dismiss the entire account to avoid the issue
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 243#981243
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 564#981564
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 864#981864


FALSE DICHOTOMY : Attempts to shift focus to whether Mary was part of the family
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 349#981349
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 359#981359
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 673#981673

THE QUICKSAND Attempts to build an argument from the negative
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 853#981853

THE SWAP Attempts to swap the original irrational claim for a more balanced rhetoric
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 920#981920

[2timothy316]

Perhaps you were looking for evidence to adjust Mark's meaning?

Sort of. Though it wasn't to 'adjust' it. I used John's inspired letter to expand upon what Mark wrote. To me John's letter is supplemental information for more accuracy, not correctional information to make Mark's letter seem incorrect.

It's the shortest of the Gospels and not nearly as detailed as the other three accounts. His writing style was in broad strokes in some areas and highly focused and detailed on others. Particularly when it came to Jesus' feelings. So for Mark to simply say 'his family' and not name exactly who that was, wouldn't be that strange for Mark. He must have been speaking about those that didn't have faith in Jesus. John says that those were his brothers. Mary nor his sisters are mentioned.

Side note: At least two of Jesus brothers didn't stay unfaithful. Two of Jesus' half-brothers, James and Jude have books in the Bible. Apparently they came around to putting faith in Jesus after all.

[William]

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

marco: A good point but the imposition of a strawman personality might apply, a fortiori, to the apostles who saw Jesus over a period of only three years. Asked who they thought he was, they offer a variety of answers.

William: To be sure, but the often overlooked or even completely ignored part is that Jesus taught a small group of interested followers things which those followers did not report. So the things that they did report were basic and possibly designed for a different audience than the audience that they themselves were - re Jesus and his stories.
Their choice not to hide their initial immaturity and Judgmental opinions, but to hide the far more detailed stuff, could be considered a calculated choice which would serve those who approached the whole story without Judgement. The clues are there for a reason.

marco: It is true that a mother may see no wrong in her son, but when she sees some flaw, she is often in the best position to judge.

William: There is no saying a mothers Judgment is nothing but projection, regardless of what the recipient thinks about his mothers position. That too may be the product of projection...perhaps even one in which the mother wants the son to see her as.
I personally have caught my own mother out on a number of things to which her reply is always "no mother is perfect" which I think may be true, so take into consideration.

Those followers - It Is Written - were told a great deal more than Jesus told his blood relatives over 30 years.

marco: They were told a great deaal more about Christ's ideas, wrong or right.

William: We cannot say because most of it was hidden from us. Certainly we can deduce that since Jesus spoke about the Metaphysical (his Fathers Kingdom) it can safely be assumed that most of his subject matter was focused on the Metaphysical, so in that regard, we would have to experience such for ourselves as to whether then - we could ascertain 'right and wrong' based on what little information the story-tellers left. The Bible stories are one thing, the Metaphysical something else...some bridge connecting the two is helpful to that end...

marco: We understand that Mary knew something of his unusual abilities if we are to accept the wedding feast story.

William: Yes I have read the arguments. I am reminded of Krishnamurti and the Theosophical Society which had been preparing him for the role of World Teacher...it turned out that he had a mind of his own and rejected the role being put upon him...the story of Jesus and his mother gets me thinking that possibly Mary (and his relatives) were wanting an equal share in the pie and Jesus decided to give it all to his Father...

marco: The point is that the apostles received information from Jesus and digested it; his relatives not only got information, but they were able to judge him from his earliest actions, and may have been less susceptible to his propaganda than simple fishermen.

William: Yes I am aware that is your point. I am offering another way of looking at it. One which is probably more likely, given the Metaphysical connection - which you view as 'propaganda' - In that, this family who not only think they know him, but want to have more control of him, are in the same position as you who argue for such. They do not believe.

Why would Jesus expect genuine support for his message from that kind of people?

marco: A man reveals himself more by what he does than by what he says. Christ knew this: "A prophet among his own goes unrecognised." Sometimes with great justfication!

William: Neither what I do or say reveals anything about me than whatever strawman effigy the recipient decides to interpret my words and actions as.
The problem isn't so much that we all do it, as it is that most of us do it from a platform of judgment.

The metaphysical allows for the opportunity to chose to drop the judgment...as well as accommodates those who chose not to.

That aspect of Jesus' message does come through. That his family at some point found him possibly insane does not in itself mean that he actually was.

It can just as easily mean that the things he was saying and doing at that time, were more than their judgmental selves could bear to witness.

Would it be fair to add here that it appears some - if not all of them - eventually built a bridge and got over it?

[marco]

I used John's inspired letter to expand upon what Mark wrote. To me John's letter is supplemental information for more accuracy, not correctional information to make Mark's letter seem incorrect.

John famously does not usually give supplementary information, but wanders off on his own theological tracks. We accept he is is not in accord with the other three, while still commenting on the theology around Christ, even, in some views, deifying his subject. There is no reason to suppose that some comment made by John provides an explanatory match with something said by Mark.

It would have been easy for Mrk to have written: his brothers were anxious. But he is explaing why the FAMILY travelled to see Jesus.

The family's anxiety is mentioned because it affects our judgment on Jesus. He thought he had divine support, measured in angelic legions, but prrovided no evidence for his accusers to refrain from their charges against him. He acted, in other words, in a way that some benighted soul might act. Today he would have perhaps been declared insane, rather than condemned and executed. We have in our literature instances of people writing brilliantly expressed poetry, while being tenants in an asylum. Jesus provided no good defence simply because he could not - for whatever reason.

[JehovahsWitness]

QUICKSAND

It would have been easy for Mrk to have written: his brothers were anxious.

Again you try and support you claim to know what Mary was thinking based on what Mark did not write. This is rather like claiming someone that ate fruit must have eaten oranges because it would have been easy to say "I ate fruit but I didn't eat any oranges". You are building on a negative in an attempt to make it a positive.

• Again and again, 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!

THE QUICKSAND Attempts to build an argument from the negative
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 853#981853

[JehovahsWitness]

... he is explaing why the FAMILY travelled to see Jesus.

MARK 3:20-35
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt ... 19-41:3:35


SOME FACTS:

• Mark didn't use the word "travelled" which would have implied a journey of some distance, Jesus was in the immediate locality.
• Mark speaks about Jesus "relatives" fears for Jesus sanity, we cannot be sure which relatives he is referring to.
• Marks comment about "the relatives" intentions is not tied in directly with the Maryn and her son's seeking an audience with Jesus. (He doesn't say "therefore" , "so...", "In order to seize him they stood outside ")
• Marks specifies that Mary and the brothers sought an audience with Jesus, he does not stipulate whether this was an attempt to "have him committed" .
• Mark stops well short of stipulating why Mary was present. He doesn't explain what she thought of the situation and he certainly doesn't state "she thought he was inane".

Mark, as is characteristic of his style, opts for drama over detail and keeps his narrative moving at a pace that doesn't allow for the dogmatism evident in comments such as ...

....she thought him insane..

[2timothy316]

I used John's inspired letter to expand upon what Mark wrote. To me John's letter is supplemental information for more accuracy, not correctional information to make Mark's letter seem incorrect.

John famously does not usually give supplementary information, but wanders off on his own theological tracks.

This opinion adds nothing.

We accept he is is not in accord with the other three, while still commenting on the theology around Christ, even, in some views, deifying his subject.

You accept...There is no 'we'. I do not accept what you have accepted, as I have found no Biblical evidence of your claims. Actually by using a reference Bible we find there is evidence to the opposite of what you claim.

There is no reason to suppose that some comment made by John provides an explanatory match with something said by Mark.

Indeed there is a reason and this is why you should use a reference Bible so that you can tie the Gospels' timelines together better to get answers that otherwise you miss.

John 7:1 says that Jesus set out across the Sea of Galilee. Mark 3:7 confirms this voyage. John 8:48, Mark 3:30 is another piece of evidence that ties these two accounts to around the same time period. As this is was also the time Jesus was accused of having a demon in him.

It would have been easy for Mrk to have written: his brothers were anxious. But he is explaing why the FAMILY travelled to see Jesus.

Yet John chapter 7 which I have established with Bible references explains who in the family had the issue. See, this is what you need to get your claim in concrete, Bible references and not self-reliant interpretation.

The family's anxiety is mentioned because it affects our judgment on Jesus. He thought he had divine support, measured in angelic legions, but prrovided no evidence for his accusers to refrain from their charges against him. He acted, in other words, in a way that some benighted soul might act. Today he would have perhaps been declared insane, rather than condemned and executed. We have in our literature instances of people writing brilliantly expressed poetry, while being tenants in an asylum. Jesus provided no good defence simply because he could not - for whatever reason.

Yet people saw him cure people, feed thousands with a few morsels of fish and bread during the days where he sanity is in question. People were following him with their sick everywhere he went. What more defense does he need to be shown as the Son of God? He also spoke in a way that no one had heard before. His illustrations in explaining the scriptures made sense. Something people had not received from the Jewish leadership.

His family's anxiety is mentioned because, “He that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me.� (Matt. 10:37) Jesus was not shielded from the very same thing as those who follow God's commandments will have to face today. Pressure from family. Even called insane from those who have known us since childhood. Yet his brothers felt the pressure from those around them, thus tried to make excuses for Jesus. Yet the defense Jesus was providing by healing the sick and curing so many people was his best defense.

[marco]

It would have been easy for Mark to have written: his brothers were anxious.

Again you try and support you claim to know what Mary was thinking based on what Mark did not write.

No, I am using what Mark actually wrote: The family was worried; and I am making an appropriate deduction.

This is rather like claiming someone that ate fruit must have eaten oranges

If you think this is a good analogy, I may be wasting my time.

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!

This nonsense is supposed to relate to the simple statement: The holy family was anxious?

We do have the further information that they, including Mary, went to get Jesus, because they were anxious. You've forgotten this in the crime thriller you were composing.

I suppose we shall next be told that "the family" might well have been the Oblomovs, since we are not entitled to make deductions.

[marco]

His family's anxiety is mentioned because, “He that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me.� (Matt. 10:37)

I'm surprised you quote this despicable statement as if it lauds Christ. It paints him as self-centred and selfish, if indeed he ever uttered these words. One must feel sympathy for Christ's family, especially his mother, if Christ actually said such hurtfully disrespectful things.

Jesus was not shielded from the very same thing as those who follow God's commandments will have to face today. Pressure from family.

Family view is more important than the admiration of simple admirers. Perhaps we should pay more attention to that. If Jesus learned the art of trickery or magical feats to impress the simple, then this would build the treasury of flattery on which he seemed dependent. Significantly he did not impress those who mattered - the priests of his faith - insulting them verbally because they did not flatter him or endorse his grandiose opinion of himself.