Critiquing: Is It Possible Jesus Has Already Come?

November 20, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Second Coming Speculation — Apocalyptic Prophecies — Resurrection’s Role — Kingdom Expectations — Scriptural Interpretations

---

Introduction

This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the content discussing whether Jesus has already come, the nature of his prophecies, and the significance of his resurrection. The evaluation focuses on logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and the need for substantiation of claims, using direct quotes from the content to support the critique.

Logical Inconsistencies

Ambiguity in Claims The content presents ambiguous statements without clear definitions or boundaries, which can lead to logical inconsistencies. For instance, the discussion on the possibility of Jesus coming in a manner similar to Elijah coming as John the Baptist is muddled with speculative statements.

“Is it possible Jesus is an alien from another planet who’s posing as God? I don’t know. I guess so.”

Contradictory Statements The content makes conflicting claims about the nature of Jesus’ appearances. At one point, it discusses Christophanies in the Old Testament and then differentiates them from Jesus’ incarnation.

“There is a sense that, arguably Jesus showed up in the past, but not as an incarnation. The incarnation was unique.”

This creates confusion about the nature and timing of Jesus’ appearances.

Logical Fallacies

False Analogy The argument comparing the possibility of Jesus’ return in a different form to the hypothetical scenario of Jesus being an alien is a false analogy. The two scenarios are not comparable in terms of evidence or plausibility.

“Is it possible Jesus is an alien from another planet who’s posing as God? I don’t know. I guess so.”

Straw Man Fallacy The content misrepresents the position of those questioning Jesus’ prophecies to easily refute it. For example, it implies that critics ignore the spiritual elements of Jesus’ kingdom when discussing his prophecy about the kingdom’s arrival.

“Jesus made it clear that there is an immaterial element of the kingdom that would be first and foremost.”

Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias The content shows confirmation bias by selectively citing scriptural passages that support the traditional view of Jesus’ second coming while dismissing or downplaying passages that suggest a different timeline.

“Everything scripturally indicates that when Jesus returns, that will be the end of the age. It will be visible, powerful, and conclusive.”

Anchoring Bias The content anchors its arguments on pre-existing theological interpretations without considering alternative scholarly perspectives, which can hinder a balanced evaluation of the evidence.

“All of you hold to a visible return of Christ. They have different views about what the word millennium means and how that manifests itself in history as time goes on. But they all believe that Jesus is going to come back in the manner I just described.”

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims in the content are unsubstantiated and dubious, lacking sufficient evidence to support them. The obligation to substantiate all claims is crucial for maintaining logical coherence and credibility.

Unsubstantiated Claim:

“But there’s no good reason to believe that’s the case. What you have to go with is the odds-on favorite.”

Dubious Claim:

“It seems to me if you’re going to be reasonable. So what would be the reason that Jesus has come in two different periods of time?”

Testing Alleged Promises

The content makes various claims about Jesus’ second coming that could potentially be tested. For example, the assertion that Jesus’ return will be “visible, powerful, and conclusive” could be examined by assessing historical and current events against these criteria.

Method to Test:

• Compare historical records and contemporary reports of events claimed to be related to Jesus’ return with the described characteristics of visibility, power, and conclusiveness.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is essential to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. The content often fails to do this, presenting highly speculative claims as if they are on par with well-supported theological positions.

Example of Misalignment:

“Visible, powerful, and conclusive. And remember, that’s Matthew 24, but in Acts chapter 1, Jesus ascends into heaven, and the angels show up after he’s gone while the disciples are still looking around, gawking at the sky and says this Jesus will return in the same manner that he left.”

The content should stress the importance of evidence-based belief, ensuring that claims about Jesus’ return are proportionate to the available evidence.

Conclusion

In summary, the content discussing the possibility of Jesus’ return and related theological issues contains several logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and cognitive biases. It makes unsubstantiated and dubious claims that require further evidence to be credible. By emphasizing the need to map belief to evidence and testing alleged promises, a more coherent and rigorous discussion can be achieved.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section!