did you look up the term finger of God?
I did confirm the reference from Luke to Exodus 8.
Here is what Scripture tells us:
Matthew 12:22-23 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
The term son of David is a Messianic term. The Lord Jesus Christ caused the blind to see and the dumb to speak ... which fulfilled OT prophecy (Is 35:5, 6).
When the pharisees heard the people calling Jesus "son of David", they immediately put a stop to it by claiming Jesus had cast out devils by beelzebub ... and Jesus immediately put them in their place.
The blasphemy of the pharisees was they attributed God’s work to satan, thereby giving satan glory ... glory that belongs only to God.
The discussion point you replied to was regarding Luke's writing.
I do agree that satan uses any means at hand in order "to make it look like [he has] the power of God". His goal is to "be like the most high God" (Is 14:14) ... that and keep folks from believing in the True God.
So, you interpret the reasoning Jesus is using in Luke to refer to Satan using deceptive strategy by casting out demons and dividing his own kingdom? Wouldn't this go against what Jesus is reasoning?
I do not believe the record supports the claim that Jesus was referring to His disciples. The record reveals Jesus responded to the pharisees who claimed Jesus cast out demons through beelzebub.
claim of pharisees:
Matthew 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it [when they heard the people saying "is not this the son of David"], they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
response of Jesus:
Matthew 12:27 And if I [Jesus] by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your [Greek = hymōn = "your" referring to the pharisees] children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
If Jesus had meant His disciples, He would have said "my [Greek = mou = my] disciples"
Again, there is a yet unproven assumption here that we can simply use Luke and Matthew interchangeably. Since you believe this is proper procedure, I can understand why you do or don't believe what the record supports.
Remaining in Luke, Luke only refers to some from the crowd, not some "from the Pharisees", alleging Jesus was casting out demons by Beelzebub.
Until the reasoning of what Jesus said is properly understood so the logic works, who the "sons" are is up for discussion. Thus the differences in commentaries, discussions, and articles as shown in the links I provided. Maybe who the "sons" are is not really that important to Jesus' argument. IF Luke and Matthew are referring to the same event, maybe this is why Luke determined it appropriate to state things differently than Matthew did. Same goes for Mark. At the end of the analysis, the point of what each writer are making is what's important to understand.
my "favored view" is the Word of God. we're all here to learn from each other. I learn a lot from the folks who communicate here and I look forward to continuing to learn. I appreciate that you shared the links.
If we modify what you said is your "favored view" to something like "the Word of God [properly understood}" then you and I would be in full agreement.
In my view, it seems clear to me that in forums like these there are few who are here to learn from each other. If you are here even in part for learning, I commend you and wish we all had the same goal.
You're welcome for the links. Thanks for expressing your appreciation.