Confusing Eschatology

The vlog below is very well presented. The speaker has a good grasp of Jewish eschatological expectations as well as Christian eschatology. His presentation likely finds allies in ‘former’ Christians, those acquainted with and/or adhering to orthodox Jewish beliefs, and those generally opposed to Christianity.

His basic premise is that the split nature of Christian eschatology, specifically the ‘already’ (inaugurated eschatology) and the ‘not yet’ (future eschatology)—which is at odds with Jewish expectations—was a Christian invention in the wake of Jesus’ death. In accordance with this view, he thinks the New Testament writers fabricated Jesus’ resurrection as a means by which to alleviate the supposed cognitive dissonance resulting from His Crucifixion. Furthermore, he claims that the 2000 year gap between Jesus’ first century appearance in flesh and the Second Coming makes such a split view of eschatology even more untenable.

There are many ways to counter his views; however, given that he does not affirm the NT writings as (in any way?) authentic, the argument would be unable to properly proceed. Yet, there are a number of Old Testament passages one could point to, the first of which I think should be Isaiah 53. Surely, if this is describing the Messiah, and yet Jewish expectations include a Messianic reign, then the Resurrection must implicitly be part of the plan. Motyer lays out Isaiah’s implied resurrection in 53:10–12 succinctly:

Isaiah does not use the word ‘resurrection’ but these verses display the Servant ‘alive after suffering’ (Acts 1:3). Not, however, alive in the Old Testament sense that the dead possess in the half-life of Sheol  [ED: cf. Luke 16:19–31] . . . The dead (9) is alive (10), the condemned (8) is righteous (11), the helpless (7) is the Victor (12).1

The way the vlogger chooses to discount the split aspect of Christian eschatology, though, is problematic. In tune with his confirmation bias, he posits a false analogy. He uses failed ‘prophecy’ in the form of Second Coming predictions—even though such predictions violate the Scriptures Christian orthodoxy accepts—to ‘prove’ how Christians use Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) to resolve such failed prophecy.

He uses the Millerites and Seventh Day Adventism as his example, in which the failed date-setting is salvaged via a ‘spiritualized’ fulfillment, while the Second Coming remains yet future. He then implicitly equates this to the Resurrection and its attendant eschatology, suggesting that first century Christians supposedly used similar CDT in order to relieve their dissonance following Jesus’ Crucifixion.

My point in posting this is to show merely one way a person can try to cast doubt on the truths contained in Scripture. It’s all about one’s presuppositions.


1 J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary [TOTC], (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009 [1999]), p 381 (I Capitalized “Victor”).



Creating Straw Men from Cognitive Dissonance


9 Responses to Confusing Eschatology

  1. tamstorer says:

    Thank you, agreed. “Who moved the stone” by Frank Morrison? Why is it unbelievable God raises the dead? Complex, complex, as you say, if one has made up one’s mind, that is it! Andrew

    Liked by 1 person

    • Craig says:

      Yes, indeed! Confirmation bias.

      I’d not heard of Morrison’s Who Moved the Stone. I may have to seek that out.

      Thanks for your comment!


      • Tricia says:

        That book, Who Moved The Stone, was one of the first I read as a new Christian and it made a lasting impression on me. I still think of it fondly because the writer, I believe, started out on a mission to disprove the resurrection and ended up supporting it. The title is the question that stumped him – and it should stump anyone who tried to explain those events.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Craig says:


          Thanks for your endorsement on Morrison’s book.

          Yet, I suppose if one just doesn’t even believe the stone was moved in the first place–thereby casting aside all the NT accounts and/or denying their historicity–then the issue is moot. It comes down to presuppositions.

          Happy new year! And I hope all is well–at least relatively.


  2. SLIMJIM says:

    Going to share this in my Presup Round up post in a couple of days

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Craig says:

    Here’s NT Wright providing a succinct defense of the Resurrection, including the evidence of the empty tomb.

    NT Wright: Why the disciples didn’t invent Jesus’ resurrection


  4. Pingback: Late December 2022 Presuppositional Apologetics’ Links | The Domain for Truth

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: