Critiquing: Won’t Jesus Only Be Able to Interact with One Person at a Time?

June 27, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Physical Limitations — Theological Assumptions — Heaven’s Nature — Divine Interaction — Jewish Perspective

---

Introduction

The content titled “Won’t Jesus Only Be Able to Interact with One Person at a Time?” addresses questions about Jesus’ ability to interact with individuals in eternity given his physical body and discusses how a scholarly Jewish rabbi might defend the position that Jesus is not the Messiah. This critique aims to evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, focusing on potential logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases.

1. Physical Limitations of Jesus

Logical Coherence

The content discusses the concern that Jesus, having a physical body, would be limited in his ability to interact with individuals in eternity.

Analysis

Logical Inconsistency: The content acknowledges that Jesus’ physical body has limitations, yet it simultaneously suggests that divine interaction will not be hindered.

“Jesus’ physical body is not omnipresent. It seems to me that’s obvious, given the nature of physicality.”

Cognitive Bias: The explanation relies on the assumption that the divine nature of Jesus will somehow compensate for the physical limitations, without providing a clear rationale for how this would function.

“However, you have to look at all of the ways God interacts with people even now. So even now, there are times when our awareness of God is much stronger than other times.”

2. Theological Assumptions about Heaven

Logical Coherence

The content critiques the common theological assumptions about the nature of heaven and the experience of believers.

Analysis

Equivocation Fallacy: The content shifts between different descriptions of heaven, from a spiritual realm to a renewed earth, without a consistent framework.

“We are not going to be in the sweet by and by. We are going to be here on earth.”

Hasty Generalization: The content makes broad claims about what heaven will be like based on selective interpretations, without addressing alternative theological perspectives.

“There are things happening. We’re going to be greeting each other. We’re going to be reunited with people that are in Christ that have gone on before us.”

3. Nature of Divine Interaction

Logical Coherence

The content explores how believers will interact with God and Jesus in eternity, suggesting a continuous and personal relationship.

Analysis

Unsubstantiated Claim: The assertion that believers will have continuous and personal interactions with God in multiple ways is made without concrete evidence or clear logical support.

“And God is God. There’s only one God and we’re going to have access to that God in multiple ways and in richer ways I think than we ever did before.”

Cognitive Bias: The explanation assumes a harmonious and fulfilling interaction with God, reflecting a confirmation bias that aligns with the author’s theological views. The confidence behind the claim is derived from the fact that it cannot be tested.

“God’s not limited by the number of people that there are despite the fact that Jesus’ human nature is obviously limited in that way.”

4. Jewish Perspective on the Messiah

Logical Coherence

The content addresses how a scholarly Jewish rabbi might defend the position that Jesus is not the Messiah, focusing on the fulfillment of messianic prophecies.

Analysis

Circular Reasoning: The Jewish argument that Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies because the kingdom has not been restored presupposes that the restoration of the kingdom is the primary criterion for identifying the Messiah.

“The kingdom isn’t here yet. That hasn’t happened yet, so therefore the Messiah hasn’t come yet.”

This circularity is analogous to the times STR hosts dismiss the possibility that the Bible contains logical incoherencies on the basis that the Bible cannot be wrong. No matter how intrinsically improbable or convoluted the “reconciliation” of the apparent logical incoherency, it “must” be true since they have dismissed even a slight probability that the Bible is flawed.

Unsubstantiated Claim: The content asserts that the Messiah’s coming could be twofold without providing substantial evidence or a robust framework to support this claim.

“The Messiah’s coming could be twofold in two stages.”

5. Testing Divine Promises

Logical Coherence

The content indirectly addresses the promises of divine interaction and the nature of eternity, suggesting methods to test these promises through theological interpretation and personal experience.

Analysis

Lack of Empirical Methodology: The content does not provide clear, empirical methods to test the promises of divine interaction, relying instead on subjective experiences and theological assertions.

“Think about Paul. Paul has a vision of Jesus. I don’t think, I mean, Jesus didn’t come back to earth to speak to Paul.”

Confirmation Bias: The explanation of divine interaction is framed to confirm pre-existing beliefs about the nature of God and eternity, without considering alternative interpretations or evidence.

“God is always with me and I’m always with him. There’s a companionship there.”

This “companionship” is indistinguishable from, say, the companionship between a child and his imaginary friend. The standard ways we test for the existence of real companions are dismissed as unreasonably restrictive by Christians.

Conclusion

The content presents several theological arguments that, while emotionally and intuitively appealing to believers, contain logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. The reliance on ambiguous language and fallacious reasoning undermines the logical coherence of the arguments. A thorough critique from a critical perspective reveals these flaws and emphasizes the need for clearer, substantiated arguments in theological discourse.

---

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