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?

[Eloi]

The Scriptures saying in all honesty that Jesus was rejected by many of his relatives ... it acts in favor of biblical truthfulness, and also, instead of saying something against Jesus' morals, it reflects how truthful his words were always about the rejection that his disciples would also suffer even from their closest relatives. His words to his disciples were based precisely in the reaction of the other people to his own ministry; he said to them that no one was greater than himself, and that if he, being the Son of God, was called Belzebu and was rejected by so many people, so would be his loyal followers. The reaction of other people does not define the morals of the rejected person (or btw the accepted one). We, Jehovah's witnesses, don't make a conclusion like "If he was not convincing enough for those closest to him, then we must question his authenticity" based on others words or way of reacting ... neither we do think on him as God or his family as "the holly family".

John 15:17 “These things I command YOU, that YOU love one another. 18 If the world hates YOU, YOU know that it has hated me before it hated YOU. 19 If YOU were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because YOU are no part of the world, but I have chosen YOU out of the world, on this account the world hates YOU. 20 Bear in mind the word I said to YOU, A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute YOU also; if they have observed my word, they will observe YOURS also. 21 But they will do all these things against YOU on account of my name, because they do not know him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He that hates me hates also my Father. 24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have both seen and hated me as well as my Father. 25 But it is that the word written in their Law may be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without cause.’

Matt. 10:24 “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his lord. 25 It is enough for the disciple to become as his teacher, and the slave as his lord. If people have called the householder Be·elʹze·bub, how much more [will they call] those of his household so?

[marco]

The Scriptures saying in all honesty that Jesus was rejected by many of his relatives ... it acts in favor of biblical truthfulness

That may be so but it does not diminish the gravity of the accusation. If indeed Christ had some divine involvement, then those who knew him for more than twenty years would surely discern this. That they "came round" is a feeble back up.

‘They hated me without cause.’

This sort of dramatic statement detracts from Christ's claim to be some inspired preacher. He gave them every reason to hate him, claiming he was more important than Abraham, and referring to their magistrates as "whited sepulchres." He acted as an arrogant upstart and was treated as such. So it is untruthful for him to say "without cause."

If he had anything to back up his claim, he was given the opportunity to defend himself and he chose not to. He was the engineer of his own execution.

[Eloi]

I don't see any reason why it should be important to me that so many people rejected Jesus. Instead of telling me about Jesus' morals, people's reaction to his ministry speaks more about people's ability to recognize the content of his message, which makes me wonder how it is that seeing and knowing all the things that he was doing and saying, yet they rejected him, especially the Jews themselves.

Of course, you have your own way of looking at the matter and your personal opinion, but it is by no means the only way to address it. As I said before: the reaction of other people does not define the morals of the rejected person (or btw the accepted one).

[marco]

I don't see any reason why it should be important to me that so many people rejected Jesus. Instead of telling me about Jesus' morals, people's reaction to his ministry speaks more about people's ability to recognize the content of his message
which makes me wonder how it is that seeing and knowing all the things that he was doing and saying, yet they rejected him, especially the Jews themselves.

Well the difference is, they were there and you weren't. I too derived belief from a religious body selling Jesus as the greatest human ever. I was attracted to the harmless infant, born in poverty, then to the innocent man mocked and crucified. But I too forgot that people saw what has been reported as miracles, and possibly detected fraudulence. It is very important to note his own family did not see him as a fraud, but as a madman. We should respect their view for at a distance of 2000 years, we know very little.


Jesus was undoubtedly boastful. He did not possess the humility of, say, Mother Teresa. His communistic message, offering power to the people, pulling down the mighty, the accomplished, the intelligent to make way for the vagrant, the down-and-out and the physically or mentally impoverished. He is a king with no throne, a general with an army of ghost angels. Is it any wonder intelligent people of the time mocked him? That he was later used by even cleverer people and had his name carved into one of the world's top religions has little to do with his message, whatever that was, but everything to do with politics. He brought anger on Jews, who still suffer today from his foolish words, or rather from the venomous reporting of his biographers. There is no way Jews as a body would call curses on their own children. This is an evil and spiteful accusation.


In the end when he was exposed as nothing but a boastful magician, with no magic to save himself, he got what he was aiming for, though the poor man believed the spirit world would bring him back soon to continue to talk. Others have done the talking for him in as many different ways as there are Christian groupings.

As I said before: the reaction of other people does not define the morals of the rejected person (or btw the accepted one).

The Jews rejected him for what he said. Anyone who says you must hate your father and follow him is not entirely nice. Perhaps had he apologised for some of his more extreme statements, that might have been something in his favour. And had he made it clear he wasn't the incarnation of Jehovah, that too would have helped him. But he refused. He probably saw himself as a god.

[Eloi]

That is only your opinion, and it has nothing to do with what Bible says about Jesus, who he was, what he did, why he did it or so. It is totally irrelevant ... but of course, you can express yourself as everybody else.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 113 by marco]

Is not Love less the correct Greek for the translated hate? There were several degrees of love and hate in the Koine.

[marco]

That is only your opinion, and it has nothing to do with what Bible says about Jesus, who he was, what he did, why he did it or so. It is totally irrelevant ... but of course, you can express yourself as everybody else.

All views are "opinion". Mine is as much backed up by what I read as anyone else's. For a man to say: "Who do you suppose I am?" and wait happily for somebody to say he's the son of God is delusion. But yes, we can also think it supports a divine claim. Or if we don't want him to b God, we can play with language and point out that he was god-like in his goodness. There are many theologies that have evolved around Christ. The Church of Rome, the longest-surviving and the one with perhaps the best claim to be closest to Christ, is criticised by rival groups who have mushroomed in the past few hundred years. So let us not deride poor Marco's opinion - his is but a voice in the wilderness of doubt.

[marco]

[Replying to post 113 by marco]

Is not Love less the correct Greek for the translated hate? There were several degrees of love and hate in the Koine.

I don't believe I understand your question.

"Love is not love that alters when it alteration finds", said Shakespeare. And through the centuries the Lord of Love has undergone many transformations. I once believed I ate him on Sundays. Some still do. Others think he will come not in a taxi, but out of the sky on a cloud, since it is supposed he dwelleth in the skies, in one of his many mansions. Some think God so loved the world that he allowed his son to cry out in horror, and surveyed the man's torture and crucifixion. Such is love. And the Good Shepherd said I'm more important than mum or dad or the kids - hate them and come with me. Many modern Christian groups make the same heart-breaking, horrible demand.


Granted he and Paul spoke of "love" but one doubts whether either individual ever experienced it in reality. In the end, when asked to verify his outrageous claims, all he could do was say that somewhere in the sky were lots of soldier angels, but - surprise, surprise - he would not trouble to call them. Presumably they were watching. I'm sure that type of defence would not stand up in court today, but it might earn the accused a spell in an asylum.