The false charge here is that Jesus is Satan. The common knowledge here is that Satan = Beelzebub = demons. Matthew here is making a point about how the Pharisees saw Jesus' signs and totally misunderstood them. He's not critiquing their angelology.

Agreed on every point. I am confident, however, that Jesus was not affirming their beliefs but only refuting their accusation.

In similar situations, when they bring up divorce, He answers their question without going into a full discourse or even explanation. When they question His authority, He asks a question in return (about John the Baptist) and then won't even dignify their question with an answer. Here, Jesus is not concerned about giving a teaching about demonology, but instead is interested only in refuting their blasphemous accusation.

A cascade of errors only necessarily affects the ideas that follow the first error.

Jesus showed their accusation (their conclusion) to be false—this does not necessitate that every statement leading up to the conclusion was false, only that any statement based on the conclusion was false.

We know that their charge is false. Are their suppositions also false, as were the many suppositions of the "friends" of Job? I think so. They speak what sounds like good theology, but it's wrong from every angle. Nonetheless, Jesus is showing their accusation to be false, not their theology to be true.

This simply isn't true. Let me show you why.

Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?

Did you catch that? The Pharisees call Satan the "Prince of Demons" and Jesus confirms it, stating that he couldn't cast demons out of people using Satan's power, because that would be Satan casting himself out!

Satan and demons are a team. The Pharisees knew it, Jesus confirmed it.

> What Biblical justification do you have for this claim?

Because the Bible doesn't make the connection. Satan is associated with fallen angels (Mt. 25.41). Demons are not associated with angels or called angels, nor are they connected to Satan. How can I show you a verse that doesn't exist, right?

> It seems to me the Bible describes evil forces as being united under one Satanic scheme.

Except that demons aren't even identified as evil. They are presented as amoral forces of chaos, more like a tornado or an earthquake in that sense than as an evil angel who is a minion of Satan. Satan is a deceiver, but the demons in the Bible always tell the truth. They are not associated with sin, and they don't lead people into sin. They're not evil, just disruptive. They are not spiritual forces of evil, but amoral beings who seem dedicated to disruption.

> Demons are not identified with Satan. Satan and the fallen angels are a different thing.

Right. I anticipated this response. I wonder how many other Christians agree with this. What Biblical justification do you have for this claim?

> It seems to me the Bible describes evil forces as being united under one Satanic scheme.

11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Generally speaking, demon possession in the New Testament causes physical symptoms like seizures (though the NT recognizes it as different from epilepsy) and what seems like madness. It's interesting that in the NT, demon possession never motivates people to sin, is not perceived as evil, and, even more intriguing, we only ever hear demon-possessed people speaking the truth. Demons are not identified with Satan. Satan and the fallen angels are a different thing. Your question is mixing up all of the categories as if they are one thing or the same thing.

It makes no sense that demons would make people act weird.

Satan was the second most glorious being in the cosmos. After trying to rebel, he was cast down to earth, where he used his cunning to trick God's own image bearers into sinning. Now he roams the earth, a deceptive spirit, appearing as an angel of light to deceive and devour yet again. An army of fallen angels, beings higher than men, at his disposal, ready to carry out his sinister bidding.

So what do Satan and his evil minions do around the time when Jesus comes to earth?

Why, they make people thrash around and act all spazzy of course!

Just what is the deal with NT demons? Why does possession have this effect? Why can't they settle down? What about entering a human makes the human act like they're having an epileptic fit? Why would that benefit a demon in any way? Surely if you want to mess with souls, you appear as something tempting, or you weaken a person's morals, or you act all conniving and calculated in order to trip up a potential witness for God. Exactly what progress does glitching a human make in furthering the great Satanic plan of deceiving the world?

It makes absolutely no sense that demons would cause, or want to cause, humans to behave how possession is depicted in the NT.