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?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]


If Jesus were indeed an emissary from God, surely the first to recognise his holiness and his miraculous nature would be those closest to him. Why would they NOW think him insane?

If he were guided by the wise Holy Spirit, then why did he not find a better defence?

[ttruscott]

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. 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.

That was not His defence which was rather as you say: 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." It is Satan warring against himself that is unfeasible, not Satan doing a good thing to snare the unwatchful.

[marco]

It is Satan warring against himself that is unfeasible, not Satan doing a good thing to snare the unwatchful.

Jesus diagnosed Satanic activity and cured it. He then says Satan would not war against himself.

(i) There is no guarantee Satan was involved at all - it seems unlikely.
(ii) If Satan did create tumultuous activity in a human, then he could obviously drive it out, to suit his purposes. It is silly to think Satan is restricted in his activities.

The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose, Shakespeare reminds us. He can use it and abuse it. The French have a useful phrase: to step back so as to jump forward better. Maybe Satan knows what this means even if Jesus didn't.

[JehovahsWitness]

CAN THE DEVIL PRETEND TO BE GOOD?

Can the Devil not just "pretend" to be good? Yes, but in the end, his true nature will be revealed. There is a story that this question brings to mind the well known fable of the frog (fox or turtle... depending on the version) and the scorpion.

A scorpion is walking along the bank of a river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly, he sees a frog. He asks the frog to take him on his back across the river. The frog replys, "No. If I do that, you'll sting me, and I'll drown." The scorpion reasons with him, "If I did that, I would drown too, so what would be the point in that?! ."

The frog thinks about it a while and finally agrees. So the scorpion climbs up on his back, and the frog begins to swim. But halfway across the river, the scorpion stings him. As poison fills his veins, the frog turns to the scorpion and exclaims, "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown, too."

"I couldn't help it," replys the scorpion with a shrug, "It's in my nature!"

The moral of the story, one cannot long act against one's basic nature. Satan can do a pretty convincing imitation of "good", he can fool the gullible, the godless and those who don't really love truth or goodness anyway with imitation and gimmick, habits and turbans, candles, prayer beads and frankly some pretty good music, but he cannot and will not do anything that leads people to the real source of all true goodness JEHOVAH God, their Creator. In short, Satan cannot do anything that results in peoples long term well being, something genuinely "good" because its against his nature.


JW




RELATED POSTS

Can Satan and the demons trick humans into believing they are good angels or even God or Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 072#836072

Do any good spirits (angels) sometimes communicate with humans?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 691#932691

Should all supernatural phenomena be attributed to God (or good spirits)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 245#955245

Are there "good spirits" Christians should communicate with?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 072#836072

Is SATAN mentally deranged?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 655#939655

Is God to blame for evil because he didn't make good appealjng enough?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 683#939683

Go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, SATAN THE DEVIL and ...THE ORIGINAL SIN

[marco]

CAN THE DEVIL PRETEND TO BE GOOD?

Can the Devil not just "pretend" to be good? Yes, but in the end, his true nature will be revealed.

I could become a devoted fan of these questions and their oracular replies. We might ask: Does God have astigmatism, and design a reply. It must be fun.

The scorpion story assumes a certain stupidity but one supposes Satan is rather more gifted than even Einstein or Martin Luther. The concession that Satan can perform good is enough: we need not suppose the ridiculous in order to make our theology less vulnerable.

In short, Satan cannot produce something genuinely "good" because he has no goodness in him.

The point made was that Satan CAN appear to do good. Christ suggests this is not the case. Obviously if he performs works that appear to be good we know they are done for another purpose, but to the human observer they are good; people benefit. Presumably Satan allows the deceit to continue for as long as it takes. You seem to be inventing a statute of limitations for Satan. Is it acceptable to compose a plastic theology as we go along; to meet objections with our own inventions?


Jesus said that the proof he was not Satanic was the good he had done. This is wrong, since obviously Satan can do good, as has been conceded here. Further discussion moves us into irrelevance.

[JehovahsWitness]

The point made was that Satan CAN appear to do good. Christ suggests this is not the case.

No he did not. Jesus' words don't suggest anything of the kind.


JW

[marco]

The point made was that Satan CAN appear to do good. Christ suggests this is not the case.

No he did not. Jesus' words don't suggest anything of the kind.

I accept he presented his defence in a clever way: How can Satan cast out Satan?


(i) Jesus is saying he cast out Satan. But did he? He cured his own diagnosis.

(ii) The accusation is that he is acting through an evil source. His defence is that Satan does not act against Satan - but this is not a defence to the accusation. It is perfectly possible for Satan to appear to do good.

(iii) If Jesus really were acting Satanically, then of course Satan's kingdom would not be divided against itself: he would be employing the semblance of a good act to attract people to him. If Jesus is saying this is not possible, he is wrong.


And of course the person conveniently presenting as "possessed" might well be a healthy actor. Jesus didn't quite answer this charge.

[JehovahsWitness]

The point made was that Satan CAN appear to do good. Christ suggests this is not the case.

No he did not. Jesus' words don't suggest anything of the kind.

I accept he presented his defence in a clever way: How can Satan cast out Satan?


(i) Jesus is saying he cast out Satan. But did he? He cured his own diagnosis.

(ii) The accusation is that he is acting through an evil source. His defence is that Satan does not act against Satan - but this is not a defence to the accusation. It is perfectly possible for Satan to appear to do good.

(iii) If Jesus really were acting Satanically, then of course Satan's kingdom would not be divided against itself: he would be employing the semblance of a good act to attract people to him. If Jesus is saying this is not possible, he is wrong.


And of course the person conveniently presenting as "possessed" might well be a healthy actor. Jesus didn't quite answer this charge.

And where in all that is Jesus suggesting that Satan cannot appear to do good?





JW

[Royston]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

By my reading, Christ's [seemingly lacklustre[ defence might be read in one of two ways:

1) He was a charlatan whose stories were later lent credence via politiacl expediency.

2) His lack of a robust defence was precisely what was required to set in motion the [later] rise of Christianity; in which case, 'a lamb to the slaughter' indeed. And - let's face it, in that circumstance - the ploy worked admirably.

Go well