(Debate): Will There be a Future Physical Resurrection of the Dead?

All right, welcome to Revealed Apologetics. It is my honor and pleasure to be for the first time hosting a formal debate between Chris Date and Michael Miano over the proposition.

There will be a future physical resurrection of the dead. Chris Date will be affirming, Michael Miano will be denying.

I'll go in a little bit more detail with regards to the format, but just a couple of brief announcements and then we'll kind of jump right in.

We want to give the debaters an opportunity to kind of have the time that they need, but just a couple of things.

Tomorrow, I will be having Dr. Hugh Ross back on to discuss old earth creationism.

I know a lot of people have gotten a lot of positive feedback from the last interaction with Dr. Ross and Dr. Jason Lyle, but I'm actually going to be having him,

Dr. Ross back on to talk a little bit more about old earth creationism. That was kind of the original plan and then

Dr. Lyle coming in was just an extra added treat, but Dr. Ross expressed his desire to come back on and maybe hash a couple of questions that I have with regards to that topic.

But stay tuned for that. That's tomorrow at 430 Eastern. Well, without further ado, let's jump right into this again.

Just a quick reminder, if you have any questions for the debaters, they will be taking live questions. And of course, if you want to support the channel too, you can send in a super chat and your question will go right up to the top and the debaters will address those questions as they come in.

All right. Well, without further ado, I want to introduce each debater. They're going to share a little bit about themselves and then

I'm going to break out, break down the format of the debate and then we'll, we'll begin. So let me bring in Chris Day.

Here we go. Hey, Chris, how's it going? Good, Eli, how are you doing? I'm doing good. So why don't you take a few seconds here and introduce yourself and tell folks a little bit about yourself?

Sure. I am most known for my work with the ministry Rethinking Hell, where we are conservative evangelicals who have become convinced that the

Bible does not teach the traditional view of hell as eternal torment, but instead teaches conditional immortality or annihilationism.

People can find out more at RethinkingHell .com. I was also recently hired as an adjunct professor of Bible and theology at Trinity College of the

Bible and Theological Seminary. That's the seminary of which Braxton Hunter is the president and Jonathan Pritchett is the vice president for academics.

They host the Trinity Radio Show, which I think we're all pretty big fans of. And I could say more.

I'll just end, though, with I've been married for 20 years to my wife and we have four sons and we live in the

Pacific Northwest where I work full time as a software engineer, but hope one day to teach Bible and theology at the seminary level full time.

So that was me in a nutshell. All right. Very, very good. Thank you so much. And now

I would like to introduce Michael Miano. Why don't you take a few moments to tell folks a little bit about yourself, Michael? All right.

Thank you, Eli. My name is Michael Miano, pastor at the Blue Point Bible Church. I am director of the

Power of Preterism Network, which you can find at powerofpreterism .com and also The Apologist through Miano Gone Wild Apologetics.

I've also published two books, one more of a testimonial, Understanding My Life Into Christ and Then How I Came to Understand Preterism.

The book is titled Freaked Out by the New Covenant. And then also I've published a book about demons, angels, hell, et cetera, entitled

Wicked. Both of those are available on Amazon .com. And I've been a professing folk preterist for the last 10 years and have participated in numerous debates on the topic.

All right. Thank you so much for that, Michael. Get you both. And just I know a lot of people will be watching this and may already know a little bit about the debaters here.

Again, Revealed Apologetics is hosting. That does not mean I necessarily agree with everything with regards to some of the other theological convictions that the debaters hold, but we are hosting this and I think it's a great opportunity to talk about a very important topic.

So I just thought it might be useful to throw that out. Well, without further ado, I'm going to break down the format here.

We're going to have 20 minute opening statements by each side, an eight minute rebuttal by each side and a 30 minute each cross examination.

OK, the questioner controls the time. This is going to be a whole half hour of one person questioning the other.

So that gives a nice big chunk of time. No running or skirting issues, you know, to answer questions as directly as you can.

If I if I feel that someone is kind of skipping around the issues, I may jump in and say, you know, let's stay focused.

So that should be fun. Two 30 minute cross examinations and an eight minute closing statement by each side.

And of course, towards the back end, we'll be having a question and answers, which will be somewhere around 10 to 20 minutes.

We'll see how that goes. All right. Well, without further ado, I want to repeat the proposal for tonight's debate.

There will be a future physical resurrection of the dead. Once again, Chris Date will be affirming.

Michael Miano will be denying. So first up is Chris Date. And I will kind of remove

Michael from the screen. We'll put you back on later on. OK, and let's

OK, so I'm going to put my timer, get my timer ready, and then I'll let you know when you can start. Once I click,

I will disappear. I will magically disappear and you'll have you'll have the floor. All right. Ready and start whenever you're ready.

All right. I'd like to very quickly thank my opponent, Michael Miano, for agreeing to participate in this debate, as well as Anthony Uvenio for arranging it and to Eli Ayala for hosting and moderating.

I'd say more words of thanks, but I've got a lot of material to cover. So I'm going to go ahead and dive right in. Before I present my case, though, let me begin by explaining why

I use the terminology I do to refer to my opponents and my views and why this debate is so important.

I am what historically has been called simply a preterist. According to historic preterism, several end times prophecies were fulfilled in and around 70

A .D. when the Roman armies sacked the Jerusalem temple. And this includes things like the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the number of the beast and so forth.

But some end times prophecies have yet to be fulfilled in our future, including most especially the second advent of Christ and the general resurrection of the dead.

Now, this view definitely isn't futurism, and it's not any sort of partial preterism. You see, preterism and futurism have historically been competing theories of apocalyptic interpretation among others, and all of them have affirmed that some end times prophecies will be fulfilled in our future.

Thus, in the mid 1800s, William Symington could say the preterist theory applies all but one or two chapters at the end of Revelation to events long ago past.

That's simply my view. Preterism, full stop. By contrast, my opponents view

I call hyper preterism. And according to his view, all end times prophecies were fulfilled in and around 70

A .D. and indeed all biblical prophecies whatsoever have been fulfilled in our past.

Now, why should we call my opponents view hyper preterism? Because as fellow preterist Kenneth Gentry explains, preterists like me gladly accept the basic doctrines of universal

Christian theology, but hyper preterists do not. Hyper preterism is to preterism what hyper

Calvinism is to Calvinism. It's a theological error created by pressing legitimate concerns too far.

In fact, hyper preterism contains many serious theological errors, but perhaps most important is its denial of the physical resurrection of the dead, because the physical resurrection of the dead has been definitional of historic

Christianity. In the second century, Irenaeus's popular rule of faith said, I believe in the or sorry, the church has received the faith in the beloved

Christ Jesus and his appearing to raise up all flesh of all mankind. In that same century, the precursor to the

Apostles Creed had Christians confess, I believe in the resurrection of the flesh. The early church deemed the denial of physical resurrection to be heresy.

And thus, Tertullian wrote, it would be better for the heretic to acknowledge the resurrection of the flesh. He will not be a

Christian who shall deny this doctrine. In fact, scripture itself condemns hyper preterism as heresy.

In Second Timothy 2, Paul writes to Timothy of Hymenaeus and Thalatus, whose teaching was spreading like gangrene, who he says departed from the truth and who were ruining the faith of some because they were saying the resurrection has already taken place, just as my opponent does.

The word gangrene, by the way, in the Greek refers to a terrible, nasty disease that can include a cancer spread of ulcers that eats away the flesh and bones.

This is a very, very serious issue. But it's not only in tonight's topic, the general resurrection, that hyper preterists deny core

Christian doctrines. They also maintain a Gnostic -like view of human nature in which bodies are essentially superfluous, a

Gnostic -like denial that Christ still has a physical body, and a Gnostic -like dualism in which the physical world will forever be full of evil, pain, disease and death.

So this issue we're debating tonight is of utmost concern, and my opponent's view must not be accepted unless there's tremendous, insurmountable biblical proof for it.

And as I think we'll see tonight, there's just not. Now, let me begin making my case for a future physical resurrection of the dead, beginning with the interrelated topics of life and redemption.

I'll begin by demonstrating that to be a living human being is to be physically embodied and breathing the life -giving breath of God.

You see, in Genesis 2 -7, God creates a man from dust and breathes into his nostrils the breath of life, at which point he becomes a living creature.

The phrase is nefesh hayah, which is the phrase used also in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis to refer to swimming creatures, land animals and even birds.

And what makes humans, swimming creatures, land animals and birds living creatures, or nefesh hayah, is that they all breathe the breath of life.

And that's why in the flood narrative in Genesis 6 and 7, the flood is said to kill all creatures that breathe the breath of life.

According to Job 34 and Psalm 104, this happens when God takes back his life -giving breath, causing those who breathe it to die.

But Ezekiel 37 and Revelation 11 include pictures of God giving back the breath of life to formerly dead human beings in resurrection, causing those people to come back to life.

Thus, salvation, as we've seen, sorry, to be a living human being is to be physically embodied and breathing the life -giving breath of God.

Next, consider the language of the New Testament that talks about salvation as guaranteeing eternal life.

Salvation, you see, guarantees believers will overcome death and live embodied forever.

The most famous verse in the Bible, John 3, 16, says the Greek says God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

The Greek word here, apolami, used in the middle voice, as it is here, means to physically die.

So whoever believes in God won't ultimately physically die, but will instead live forever. Indeed, in the immediately two preceding verses,

Jesus compares himself to the bronze statue of a serpent that Moses held up in the wilderness, to which people who had been bitten by otherwise venomous snakes would have their lives saved if they just looked at that staff.

You see, believing in Jesus is literally a life or death proposition. This theme of salvation resulting in embodied life forever spans the

Bible from cover to cover, literally. Thus, in Genesis 3, God kicks Adam and Eve out of the garden so they cannot eat from the tree of life and thereby live forever.

But that tree of life reappears at the other end of Scripture in Revelation 22, where only the saved have access to its fruit, symbolizing that the saved will live forever.

We see this predicted in such text as Isaiah 25, 7 and 8, in which Yahweh promises to swallow up the veil that is spread over all nations.

That is, he will swallow up death forever. The phrase all nations, kol ha -goyim, literally means all

Gentiles, and the word translated death and its cognates are used all throughout Isaiah to refer to physical death, which here

Yahweh promises to swallow up one day. That's the only kind of death that covers all the goyim, all the Gentiles.

One Greek Santuagint translation of this text reads, death has been swallowed up in And Paul connects this by quoting it to the topic of resurrection in 1

Corinthians 15, verse 54. Earlier in that chapter, Paul makes clear that death being swallowed up forever means that the last enemy to be destroyed will be death.

The word translated destroyed here means to cause, to cease to happen. And throughout 1

Corinthians, Paul uses the word translated death and its cognates to refer to ordinary physical death like that of Christ.

So physical death will cease to happen after the resurrection. The text in Isaiah further says

God will wipe away tears from all faces, which John quotes in Revelation 21, 4, right after the passage on the resurrection.

And he adds death shall be no more. Again, the word death and its cognates are used all throughout

Revelation to refer to ordinary physical death. And John here says it won't exist anymore. In fact, it's

God speaking from the throne here in Revelation 21, 4. Paul says in Romans 6, 23, that the wages of sin is death.

But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus. And leading up to Romans 6, 23,

Paul had been using the word death to refer to the physical death of Jesus. And immediately after Romans 6, 23, just two verses later, he uses life and the verbal cognate of death to refer to the ordinary physical death of a husband that frees his wife to remarry.

So the free gift of Jesus is rescue from physical death onto everlasting physical life.

And that's why Jesus says in John 6, that whereas the Israelites had eaten manna in the wilderness and died, those who follow him, that is, those who eat from the true bread of life, the bread from heaven, will live forever.

And so we can see that salvation guarantees believers will overcome death and live embodied forever.

Now, excuse me, now let me turn to the interrelated topics of Christ and resurrection. The third plank in my case is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead physically and those united to him will rise as he did.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, 4, that Christ was raised on the third day. This word translated raised, egero, is used all throughout the

New Testament to refer to the third day resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul goes on to say in 1

Corinthians 15, verse 20, that Christ has been raised as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

The word first fruits here means the first of a set, the first of a larger set of like, like objects.

Paul also says in Acts 26, 23, that Christ was the first to rise from the dead in this way. And he says in Romans 6, 5, and 9, that we will be united with Christ in a resurrection like his.

He, that is, who will never die again. Now, critically, and this is important,

Jesus rose on the third day physically. In Matthew 28, women encounter the risen

Christ and take hold of his feet with their likewise physical hands. That's what the word krateo means, to literally grasp or take hold of an object.

In John 20, Jesus tells Doubting Thomas, famously, put your finger here, place your hand in my side.

So Jesus had a tangible, physical resurrection body. Luke 24 is particularly explicit.

The disciples encounter the risen Christ and are frightened, thinking that he's a spirit, either a ghost or an angelic being, and he says, touch me.

A spirit doesn't have flesh and bones as you see that I have. So while ghosts and angelic beings are immaterial entities,

Jesus's resurrection body was very physical. And so we've seen that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead physically, and those united to him will rise as he did.

Fourth and next, I'll demonstrate that resurrection is just the rising again of the physical body.

There is no other meaning to resurrection. My opponent and other hyperpreterists insist that early

Greek church fathers mistakenly read physical resurrection into biblical text written from a Hebraic mindset that didn't include belief in physical resurrection.

But hyperpreterists had this exactly backwards. In Acts chapter 17 at the

Areopagus or hill of Ares, Paul says God gave assurance by raising Christ from the dead.

And when people heard of this resurrection, some of them mocked. Now, why did some of the Greek philosophers at the

Areopagus mock when Paul spoke of resurrection, which is language simply meaning to stand up again, which implies a physical body?

Because in the poem Eumenides from a few hundred years earlier, Aeschylus depicts the God Apollo at the inauguration of the hill of Ares or Areopagus saying, there is no return to life when the dust has drawn up the blood of man once he is dead.

And the word return to life here is that same Greek word anastasis or resurrection. It's not only

Eumenides, Aeschylus delivers the same message in his play Agamemnon. Homer delivers the same message in the

Iliad and Sophocles delivers the same message in Electra. In these and other Greek poets and philosophers and writers, it's clear that the idea of physical resurrection from the dead was inadmissible.

It was inconceivable. It was absurd. They had no problem with the idea of resurrection as a metaphor for restoration of fellowship, but they thought it was absolutely absurd to think that a dead man might come back to physical life.

Meanwhile, the Jewish people had full confidence that the dead could come back to life because as Hebrews 11, 1 says, the

Jews had scripture recording God doing just that. Thus, in first Kings 17 and in second

Kings 4, mothers have their formerly dead children returned back to them physically alive, which is what the author of Hebrews 11 calls anastasis or resurrection.

The author goes on to say in Hebrews that script or that there are Jewish people who were so confident that God can and will resurrect people back to physical life that they were willing to be killed by torture so as to gain a better resurrection.

There's that word anastasis again. And as an example, Second Maccabees 7 records this series of Jewish brothers who one by one submit to death by torture because they trust that God will one day give them back their life, that is their zoe, and their breath and even their tongues and hands.

But it's not just Second Maccabees. It's also First Enoch 51 saying that Sheol and the earth will one day give birth to the dead that had one day gone into them.

It's also the Greek version of the life of Adam and Eve, otherwise mistakenly known as the apocalypse of Moses, says all flesh from Adam will one day rise in the resurrection.

And it's also all throughout the Babylonian Talmud compiled by Jewish scholars a couple of centuries after Christ, but recording oral traditions that had stretched out for centuries earlier, as well as the

Jerusalem Talmud, everywhere that Jewish authors wrote of resurrection, they meant bodily, physical resurrection, coming up out of the ground alive again.

Some of them did indeed deny that there would be resurrection and they believed in a sort of disembodied bliss forever.

But that wasn't resurrection in their mind. They unanimously understood resurrection to be the coming back of a dead body to physical life.

So in the first century Jewish mind, resurrection just is the rising again of the physical body.

Fifth and finally, scripture says believers will rise bodily and immortal. You see, the Jewish scholars who compiled the

Talmud presented the question, how do we know that there will be a bodily resurrection? And they answered from the law, the prophets and the writings.

Here, law is Torah. And one example of text from the prophets they thought taught bodily resurrection was this text, which is from Isaiah 26, 19 and 21, which says your dead shall live.

Their bodies shall rise. The earth will no more cover its slain. The Talmud also offers proof from the category of the writings, including

Daniel 12, 2, which says those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to another fate.

Both of these texts appear in the Greek Septuagint with the New Testament language of resurrection, the verbs anistimia negato, and the book of Daniel includes the same phrase eternal life, zoein ionion, used throughout the

New Testament for the reward of believing in Jesus. So when

Paul is on trial in Acts, chapter 24, when he says he believes everything laid down by the law and prophets, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, we know what sorts of texts he probably had in mind, the same texts his contemporary

Jews did. And besides, all throughout the book of Acts leading up to Acts 24, the language of resurrection

Paul uses here is used of the physical third day resurrection of Christ. But here's the thing.

The physical resurrection of the dead isn't merely physical. You see, back in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is using the language of resurrection repeatedly to refer back and forth between Christ's third day physical resurrection and the future resurrection of believers.

And in verse 35, he asks, how are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?

Now, he begins to answer with an agricultural analogy. Just as one plants a seed into the ground and it seems to come back up out of the ground more glorious than when it went in.

So will God give the resurrected saints a more glorious body? Now, interestingly,

Paul didn't come up with this analogy on its own. It's the same analogy offered in a couple of places in the Babylonian Talmud as well.

Anyway, Paul goes on to say that in resurrection, the thing that is sown, that which is sown, is sown one way and raised another in a series of contrasting clauses that ends with it is sown a natural body.

It is raised a spiritual body. And because Paul goes on to say that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, hyperpreterists and some liberals think

Paul's contrast between natural and spiritual means physical and nonphysical or material and immaterial.

But that's a misunderstanding of Paul's language here. Paul had earlier offered the same contrast between natural and spiritual earlier in chapter two, where he contrasts two equally physical entities, living unbelievers in the here and now who are natural and living believers in the here and now who are spiritual.

And the phrase flesh and blood is a Jewish idiom used in the New Testament and elsewhere, referring simply to mortal humanity.

Thus, Ben Sirach could say in Sirach 14, that like vegetation, some of which falls and some grows, so is the generation of flesh and blood.

One comes to an end, another is born. So spiritual has nothing to do with being immaterial or not made of flesh and blood.

It has to do with being immortal. Meanwhile, Paul is explicit. That which is sown is the same grammatical subject that is sown and is raised throughout his contrasting clauses.

The physical body that is sown is perishable, but that physical body is raised imperishable.

The physical body is sown, a natural body, but that physical body is raised, a spiritual body.

So the spiritual body simply must be the physical body that went into the ground, albeit transformed upon coming up out of it.

And this is why Paul's flesh and blood language is in a Hebraic parallel. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, he says, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

The two ideas are basically synonymous and line up with what Paul goes on to say. This mortal must put on immortality.

It's all about the presently mortal physical body, one day rising immortal. And that's why

Jesus says in Luke 20, in response to the Sadducees question about resurrection, those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection or anastasis from the dead cannot even die anymore because they are like angels and are sons of God.

So we've seen that believers will rise bodily and immortal. Now, let me sum up my case and conclude by repeating those five planks of my case that I substantiated with the various texts that I cited.

Firstly, to be a living human being is to be physically embodied and breathing the life -giving breath of God.

Secondly, salvation guarantees believers will overcome physical death and live embodied forever.

Third, Jesus Christ was raised from the dead physically, and those united to him will rise as he did.

Fourth, resurrection in the first century Jewish mind just is the rising again of the physical body.

And fifthly and finally, believers will rise bodily and immortal. Now, because I've got another 45 seconds approximately,

I just want to repeat what I said at the beginning for people that are watching and are going to be considering the case that my debate opponent is going to be offering.

Back here in my treatment of the early church fathers, remember, the earliest

Christian creeds and confessions confessed belief in the resurrection of the flesh. Greek is sarx, the

Latin is caro. The denial of the physical resurrection of the flesh was deemed heresy, and scripture itself says that if the resurrection wasn't in the past, but you say it is, you're spreading gangrene that is ruining people's faiths.

And if you accept my opponent's view, you will end up with these lot Gnostic, Gnostic like views of human nature, that Christ doesn't have a physical body anymore, and that the world is like dualism in which the physical world will forever be full of evil, pain, disease and death.

This is a very serious issue. So please take it seriously. Thank you. All right.

Thank you so much for that. Um, I think I might have removed, uh, whoops.

I think I accidentally, uh, kicked Chris out, but that's okay. Since it's Michael's turn to, to, to give his opening statement and hopefully, uh, uh,

Chris can reconnect there. I don't know what happened there. There we go. Good. He's alive. All right. Uh, Michael, um, if you have that slide, you want to share it and then

I will disappear and I will put your, your slide up there and you can do whatever you need to do, um, in your opening statement there.

Okay, great. One moment. She's going to throw it up on the screen. Sure. Just let me know.

All right. It should be there. Okay. So it's here and, uh, I'm going to start your clock right now.

Go. All right. Thank you. Uh, first and foremost, I'd like to thank Chris for his willingness to participate in this debate and of course, thank him for his work with rethinking hell .com,

uh, much of which I have benefited from also thank you to those who have worked together to make this debate happen, especially

Eli from revealed apologetics, as well as Anthony from New York apologetics tonight.

I am in the negative, which means the bulk of my presentation will be me highlighting the problems with a yet future physical resurrection of the dead.

However, I do believe I will be able to mark out and give further insight into what the proper biblical understanding of the resurrection of the dead is.

I hope that everyone involved us presenters, those of you who are watching tonight at home with pen and paper in hand, taking note of things that you'll be marking out to study, to show yourself approved.

We'll be humble, intellectually honest, and we'll follow through with the searching of the scriptures as the noble brands did in Acts chapter 17, verse 11, to see what was true.

Also may our time together provoke the, each of us to heed the apostle Paul's instruction, to study, to study, to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Second Timothy two 15 and examining everything carefully. First Thessalonians five 21,

Chris is affirming that at some later date in our history, as we are almost 2000 years removed from the original audience that Christ had spoke to, there will be a time when

Jesus Christ will appear in physical, but spiritual form, whatever that might mean. And all those who have died will rise in the body that they died in to be judged by God, whatever, uh, what many refer to as the great white throne judgment.

Chris also believes that when this happens, this will usher in a time without sin, without death, without sickness, et cetera, and all will be given their eternal estate, heaven or hell, irregardless to what you might believe about both those realities and obvious thought and question that comes to mind is if the resurrection and the judgment is in our future, what happens to people when they biologically die?

Now, I encourage you to pay special attention to how Chris responds to that tonight and, and honestly ask yourself, is that what you believe?

How and why do you believe that? Or how and why do you believe whatever it is that you believe happens to people when they die now, they biologically die now and what will happen in the future, where did you get these views from?

I will readily admit from the outset of this debate that to the average Christian who gathers with any local church today, the view that Christ has already come and all those of us who study and teach theology refer to as eschatology, that that's, that those details are in the past, which includes the millennial reign, the resurrection and the judgment, that sounds strange.

I will encourage you to be honest with yourself as you listen tonight. And as we go through these details, I hope we can all readily admit that just because something is new to our ears does not make it wrong.

Modern biblical scholars, teachers, pastors, or anyone doing diligent study of the Bible and having conversations with others will readily point out that the church is sick, direly affected by historical and biblical illiteracy.

It's a sad reality that many Christians simply continue in their presuppositions, what they believe about certain things before they've done, they've done the necessary study, assuming that is what everyone else believes.

Or worse yet, many Christians simply don't believe understanding historical details or how the ancients of let's say 6 ,000 or even 2 ,000 years ago viewed the details that we are reading to be all that important.

The good news about that is that not only is the necessity of understanding historical perspectives and history in general, being is something that Chris and I would agree upon, it's also further good news that the tide is changing in contemporary

Christian circles. Visit your local Christian bookstore and you'll see a host of new materials highlighting the importance of learning what these details meant to the original audiences.

Zondervan, a major Christian publisher, recently put out the First Century Study Bible. They also published the

Cultural Background Study Bible. And N .T. Wright, a widely recognized scholar and theologian, recently published a book titled

The New Testament in Its Own World. N .T. Wright even goes on to highlight the need for, and quote, the recovery of the

Jewish basis of the gospel, which he continues to note that, quote, we are so fortunate in this generation that we have we understand more about first century

Judaism than Christian scholarship has for a long time. And when you do that, you realize just how much was forgotten quite soon in the early church, certainly in the first three or four centuries, end quote.

Couple that with the following insight by Richard B. Hayes, another of one of the world's leading New Testament scholars, who said, quote, the

Christian tradition early on lost its connection with the Jewish interpretational matrix in which

Paul lived and moved. Consequently, later Christian interpreters missed some of Paul's most basic concerns, end quote.

By the way, these men are not full preterists, yet they clearly see the need for the recovery of the Jewish basis of the gospel, which means they also believe that it had been lost early on within the first three or four centuries of the church history.

That being so, as I already said, we need to be intellectually honest with our handling of these details, not leaning on our own presuppositions or the presuppositions of anyone else, be they church fathers or anyone even in contemporary scholarship.

I have to belabor this point about us not necessarily trusting in what we think about this topic, because oftentimes in these debates, those who hold to the popular common view will depend upon those presuppositions.

In a recent debate I had on this very topic, the man I was debating tried to mock my view by saying that everyone he asked, pastors, average church members, even people on the street, agreed that the resurrection of the dead is a time when all the dead will raise out of the graves.

That should trouble us, being that, as I just noted, a larger majority of Christianity is historically and biblically illiterate.

The Apostle Paul tells us these things are to be spiritually understood in 1 Corinthians chapter 2, so it should trouble us that pop culture, even the average unbeliever, can conjure up a perspective of this yet future resurrection of the dead.

There really is so much to be said about this topic, so much reframing, reorienting and redefining that is necessary when it comes to studying the end times, especially this topic, the resurrection of the dead.

Debates between the variety of views have been had in abundance, especially over the last few years.

So much has already been said in those debates. Therefore, my goal this evening is to clearly mark out a few of the issues which

I believe will make my case and encourage us to further study. May we lament, like the

Apostle Paul did about his generation, that many have a zeal for God, but that zeal is not based upon knowledge.

You can go ahead and read that in Romans chapter 10. I want to mark out five points tonight that are problematic with this future physical resurrection of the dead view.

Number one, of first importance is the very source of this topic. In Acts chapters 24 and 26, the

Apostle Paul is on trial and is offering a defense of the gospel. He repeatedly says in his preaching of the resurrection of the dead that his source is the law and the prophets, in other words, the

Old Testament. He also highlights in the book of Romans, specifically chapters 9 and 15, that the primary focus of the law, the covenants, the promises are his brethren of the flesh,

Israel, and that Christ came to confirm the promises to them so that the Gentiles might glorify

God for his mercy. The resurrection of the dead is the undoing of the very first death we read in the

Bible. The death died the day he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The day Adam ate of the fruit, his relationship with God was instantaneously changed. In sin, he was dead to God and his physical progeny,

Israel, would take on that identity. The law manifested sin and sin manifested death.

The second point would be that I am an advocate of the understanding the biblical narrative. What that means is and we must that we must know and understand the story of the

Bible from Genesis to Revelation. And to best understand those details, we need to again, the best way to understand the details would be to know the story.

The narrative of fellowship death that begins with Adam becomes Israel's identity as they continue to do what

Adam did, namely doing what was right in their own eyes and leaning on their own understanding.

The prophet Hosea exemplifies that death through the imagery of betrothing a prostitute and then divorcing her, a picture of the northern tribes of Israel and their rampant idolatry and the subsequent death they suffered as they were ravaged by the

Assyrians in 722 BC. Isaiah laments the fact that the death that covers all the nations, namely because Israel, who was given covenant life through the law, became dead and all the nations suffered.

You can go ahead and read that in Deuteronomy chapter four, where God says that he had given them the laws and statutes so that the nations around them could look to them.

Ezekiel prophesies about the day when the valley of dry bones will teem with life. A picture of the restoration of Israel.

Daniel talked about the out of the graves resurrection that would happen at the destruction of the power of the holy people, which many scholars have rightly identified as taking place in the first century.

I would even go on to quote Kenneth Gentry, a Bible teacher that Chris Day encourages others to learn from.

Gentry has said, quote, Daniel 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection, but national restoration, end quote.

However, Chris Day is on record in one of his most recent debates and discussions mocking such notion and saying that all throughout scripture, resurrection is about physical body resurrection.

Nowhere in scripture has resurrection have anything to do with what the hyper -preterist is saying. That is simply an erroneous statement.

James Jordan, another so -called partial preterist, has asserted, quote, verse two of Daniel 12 is often cited as proof that there was a belief in the resurrection of the body in the

Old Testament times. In fact, though, this verse does not teach that, end quote. He goes on to say, quote, the resurrection here in Daniel 12 is a national restoration or resurrection like the one portrayed in Ezekiel chapter 37, end quote.

The resurrection of the dead that the prophets continually highlight and is found all throughout the biblical story is a national resurrection, a hope for future restoration that was corporately understood and individually felt.

The third point would be the Bible verses that are mentioned in regards to this topic. I have continued putting together a running list of the verses cited in regards to the resurrection of the dead.

You can see here the slide that's been on the screen during this, my time, has them listed for you.

The important thing to note about the resurrection texts, especially those in the New Testament, is that when we study the context, paying attention to the use of pronouns, when we consider the correlating texts and also the contrasts that are often presented in the text, we get a clearer view of what was hoped for.

Two favorites of mine would be Second Corinthians chapters three through five and Philippians chapter three. Both of those texts demonstrate the identity of death that was under law, the law of Moses, a flesh and blood natural identity, whereas the goal was to be found in Christ, a glorified spiritual identity.

The fourth point would be that full preterists regularly point out the importance of taking the time texts or time statements seriously.

And on social media, someone had questioned why someone would deny, someone like myself, would deny a future physical resurrection of the dead, to which

Chris had responded, quote, because many Christians haven't sufficiently dealt with the time texts that substantiate

Orthodox preterism, leaving hyper -preterists to sound like they're taking those time texts seriously, end quote.

I agree in part with that and have continued to be frustrated with the lack of many Christians, even Bible teachers, failing to sufficiently deal with the time texts.

A common problem within the partial preterist camp, that is a common problem in the partial preterist camp, if you do the study through the time text and seek out the supposed

Orthodox preterism that Chris speaks of, you will realize that there is no clear consensus as to which texts are speaking about the past, specifically the year 66 to 70, and those that are speaking about the future.

The partial preterists continue to disagree amongst themselves. This continues to plague the

Christian community, the partial preterist community, because it is simply an inconsistent stance. Also, that is an issue that has affected

Christian theology throughout church history. There has yet to be a clear demarcation of what verses speak about things that happened in the past and what verses are in the future.

I'm sure we will talk more about church history, Chris has already mentioned some, and more throughout this debate.

Let's consider a few time statements. By the way, you can find a list of 101 time statements in the

New Testament by a simple Google search. In Matthew chapter 16, verses 27 through 28,

Jesus Christ speaks of a time that was yet future to those that were standing in front of him, but that some of them would be alive for, wherein they would see the

Son of Man coming on the clouds with angels to bring reward to every man and woman according to what they had done.

There have been a variety of arguments brought up to try and dismiss this assertion that clearly demonstrates the coming of the

Lord and the judgment that would happen while some of those disciples were alive. I'd be interested to see how

Chris deals with that. Also take note that this correlates to Revelation chapter 22, verse 2, the very last chapter in your

Bible. Daniel chapter 12 not only answers when the resurrection would occur, when the power of the holy people was finally destroyed, which

I would say is the reason why the disciples of Christ point to the temple after Christ pronounced judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew chapters 23 through 24, the temple was the very power of the law and the death that plagued the people of God under the old covenant.

However, another interesting point from Daniel 12 is that Daniel was told to seal up the book because the details of his book were far off, a long period of time.

When rightly understood, Daniel was speaking about the time of the Messiah, and we find a period of about 500 years.

Well, the apostle John was told not to seal his book, the book of Revelation, because the time was short.

That would therefore demand that the things soon to happen according to the book of Revelation, which include the resurrection of the dead and the judgment of Revelation chapter 20, as well as the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth of Revelation 21 and 22, that they must take place in a period less than 500 years from the writing of the book of Revelation.

Not still to be waited for 2 ,000 years later. In Matthew chapter 24, we read all of the end time signs, many of which contemporary

Christians constantly debate if we are seeing them happen now, not realizing that there's historical evidence within the first century that those things have already happened.

I believe Chris would agree with me for the most part. Again, I lament the fact that it's confusing to learn what partial preterists claim have happened and what has not and what's talking about the past and what's talking about the future.

Matthew chapter 24, verse 34, reminds those of the first century that their generation would not pass away until all those things happened.

Furthermore, a correlated text, Luke chapter 21, specifically verse 22, marked out that those were the days of vengeance and fulfillment of all that was written.

The Old Testament prophecies, from which I have already mentioned that the apostle Paul asserts his belief in the resurrection of the dead.

The first century Christians were living in the time of fulfillment. The time texts found in scripture demand that the end times, including the coming of the

Lord, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment and the establishment of the new heavens and new earth are in the past.

And the fifth point this evening, lastly, I'd like to explain what that means for us today. Contrary to the popular opinion or Chris's opinion, for that matter, the resurrection of the dead is not a universal reality.

It was the hope of Israel. Those who were alive in the generation of fulfillment, the first century could put their faith in Jesus Christ and pass from death to life because Jesus is the resurrection.

The question was, how will the dead ones, the Old Testament saints who died prior to the time of Christ, stand again in the presence of God?

How would they participate in the new covenant? The goal of the ages was that the truth would be manifest from God's people, that which was impossible under the old covenant because of the law, the sin and the death that enveloped flesh and blood

Israel. As first Corinthians 15 says, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

How would those who are under the old covenant, flesh and blood people, fleshly Israel, those who did not receive the promises as asserted in Hebrews chapter 11 verses 39 through 40, how would they partake of the promise?

How would the dead be raised as the living put their faith in Christ? They moved from death to life.

They experienced salvation. The dead awaited the time of restoration that would come when the power of the holy people was finally destroyed.

Once that time came, wherein the dead were raised, the asleep were gathered and the living were changed.

The kingdom of God was fully consummated for both the living and the dead at the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, the year 70 for that matter, which was the power of the holy people.

It could be said, blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on. Revelation chapter 14, verse 13.

Revelation 14 also bears out the importance of understanding the destruction of Jerusalem, aka the mysterious

Babylon. After that historical event, physically seen but spiritually understood, we can know that those who trust in Christ Jesus as Lord go from earthly existence to heavenly existence to forever be in the presence of God.

I look forward to all that both Chris and I will debate during our time tonight. I hope my presentation and the five highlights

I offered has already begun to challenge you to see the flaws within the futurist view of the resurrection of the dead.

I close by simply reiterating them. One, the Old Testament law and prophets as the source of the information regarding this topic, the resurrection of the dead, demonstrates that it was

Israel's hope to be freed from fellowship death, not physical death. Number two, the importance of understanding the context and consistency of the biblical story from Genesis to Revelation highlights a story of restoration from fellowship death, not physical death.

Number three, a necessary study and understanding of the context of the Bible verses mentioned, the ones on the screen here, the correlating texts and the contrasts found reveal a story of old covenant identity, especially old covenant identity and a transition to a new covenant identity.

Number four, the immediacy of the time statements demands that the resurrection of the dead is not something to be waited for 2000 years later, but rather something that took place within the first century generation of Christians.

And number five, what this means for us today is that there's no need to wait for a future judgment, resurrection and restoration.

Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on after the destruction. All right. That's time, Michael. Thank you so much.

Very good. You guys are doing good with the clock there. We are now going to be moving into the the eight minute rebuttal.

So Chris Date will have eight minutes to rebut what Michael has presented. And then, of course, Michael will have an opportunity to rebut what

Chris has presented. So without further ado, here is Chris. And let me just reset the clock here and ready go.

All right. So you can hear me. Let me start by addressing Michael's claim that the first centuries of the church lost its connection with the

Jewish interpretation of matrix from which the church sprang. I actually think that's true. But as I demonstrated in my opening presentation,

Michael has this exactly backwards when it comes to the topic of resurrection. It was the Greeks who couldn't countenance the idea of bodily resurrection.

The Jews believed that people had already been raised bodily from the dead and that they would, as I demonstrated from the

Talmud and from first Enoch and the Greek apocalypse of Moses and and second

Maccabees. I would be interested. I'd love to hear Michael cite any intertestamental Jewish literature in which the language of resurrection means something other than bodily resurrection.

Second, he asked, why can the average Joe on the street today articulate what resurrection means if it's bodily resurrection and if it takes spiritual minded people to understand the things of God?

Well, for a couple of reasons, firstly, because it's a post -Christian culture here that still affects much of people's thinking, even if they don't know it.

And secondly, because words simply mean things as the language of resurrection means bodily coming back to life.

But here's the thing. People in today's world also mock resurrection, particularly the kind of resurrection spoken of in the

Bible by comparing Jesus and other resurrected people to zombies. So, yes, they understand the basic gist of resurrection is coming back to bodily life, but they don't understand it in its fullness.

So that's just a canard and doesn't have any relevance to this debate. Yes, the church is sick with biblical illiteracy, which is why so many

Christians, at least lay Christians, don't think much about resurrection or even know about it.

In fact, that's the very reason that I started both my original The Apologetics podcast and that The Apologetics show on YouTube that I started yesterday is because many

Christians, it seems, don't even know that their hope is wrapped up in going to heaven when they die, not being raised from the dead, which is why at funerals, this misunderstanding of the

Christian's future hope is really on full display at funerals. Death is an enemy of God, Paul says in 1

Corinthians 15. But many Christians think it's just a transition into another blissful place in heaven.

It may be that, but even if it's that, if you look at like the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, the

Lazarus is being comforted in the bosom of Abraham, a word which refers to being consoled.

So this disembodied state into which people might go consciously while they're awaiting resurrection is a disembodied subhuman half existence.

It's not the fullness of what it means to be human, as I demonstrated in my opening presentation. To be fully human is to be embodied and living.

Now, as to some of the issues that Michael alleges my view faces, which, by the way, you'll notice he mistakenly characterized as futurist.

He mentioned in Acts 24 and 26 that Paul, when he's on trial, defends his belief in resurrection by appealing to the law and the prophets.

Well, I already demonstrated so did intertestamental Jews, as they recorded in the Talmud. They looked at texts like Isaiah 26 and Daniel 12 and many others from the law and the prophets and the writings, all as evidence that the human beings would literally come back out of their graves one day.

So if the Jews are doing that in the intertestamental literature, you can't appeal to Paul citing those same texts and say that he must have understood them differently.

No, he may have understood them in the same way as all of his contemporary Jewish people did. Meanwhile, Michael says the resurrection of Israel was an event that would only be for Israel.

But texts like Isaiah 26 make it clear that, no, it would also include Gentile God followers.

In fact, Paul says to Gentile Corinthians in First Corinthians 15 that Christ will raise all who belong to him, not just Jews.

Now, as for Genesis 2 .17, in which God warns Adam on the day you eat of the fruit, the phrase on the day here in Hebrew is just an idiom meaning when.

Even Jason Lyle in his debate with Hugh Ross on this very show a few weeks ago made that very point. In fact, if you look at Deuteronomy 27 .2,

Moses commands the people of Israel on the day you cross over the Jordan, on the day you cross over the

Jordan to the land of the Lord your God is giving you, you shall. And then he describes this ceremony that he wants them to complete on Mount Ebal.

Now, critically, later in the book of Joshua, we see them cross the Jordan and Mount Ebal is as many as 40 miles away, far too far for hundreds of thousands of ordinary, regular folks, mothers, fathers and children to march on a single day, no matter where they cross the

Jordan, it would have taken them more than a day to get there. So it's not even conceivable that Moses was commanding them to cross or to go perform this ceremony on Mount Ebal the very day they cross the

Jordan. No, he's saying when you cross the Jordan, perform this ceremony. And they did a few weeks after they crossed the

Jordan, after first demolishing the walls at Jericho and and doing some other things. A few weeks later, they get to Mount Ebal to perform the ceremony.

And a text says just as Moses had commanded them. So this is just simply a wooden, literalistic misinterpretation of Genesis 217 on Michael's part.

And that's why Genesis three goes on to explain that warning in greater detail to dust.

You shall return because you were from the dust. And remember, we looked at all through the Bible when

God's breath is taken away from a living human being, he returns to the dust, just as Genesis three says.

And then God kicks them out of the garden so that they can't take from the tree of life and eat and thereby live forever.

So revoking their access to the tree of life guaranteed their eventual physical demise. But that tree of life is going to come back one day, according to the closing chapters of Revelation, where only the saved have access to its fruit.

So only believers, but believers will live indeed forever. Ezekiel 37 is definitely about national restoration and Daniel 12 might be about national restoration.

But as I demonstrated by the time of the New Testament, Jews understood these texts to also be proof of bodily resurrection.

I think this is something like the already not yet, which has been discussed in theological circles for for a very long time.

The already is the restoration of Israel by the remnants belief in Jesus. That's what Paul talks about in Romans 9 to 11, 9 to 11.

But the not yet is when the fullness of this comes about, when the physical resurrection from the dead takes place and includes the resurrection of Gentile believers in Jesus Christ.

Now, the time texts are indeed an important issue, but none of the texts that Michael cited are proof that everything in scripture would happen in that first century and that nothing remains to be fulfilled.

In fact, some of the texts that he himself quoted prove that they're not fully fulfilled in our past.

So take the Book of Revelation, for example. It both opens and closes with strong language, saying that it was immediately going to be fulfilled.

The time was at hand. It was very near. But in the closing chapters of Revelation, there's also this period of time.

That's a thousand years in the apocalyptic symbolism of Revelation. Now, throughout scripture, the number thousand is just a big round number, meaning a really large number.

D .D. Warren used to ask on her Preterist podcast, who owns the cattle on the thousand and first hill?

Because the Old Testament says God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Well, of course, God owns the cattle on a thousand and first hill, too.

He owns them all. Thousand was just a really big number, more than a thousand years in real life.

Two thousand or more years, just as we're seeing. But Michael, in the meantime, compresses that thousand years to a few decades at most.

It's absolutely absurd and cannot be countenanced. So, no, nothing in Michael Miano's opening presentation has given anybody any reason whatsoever for thinking that there won't be a future physical resurrection of the dead.

And depending on how his rebuttal goes, we'll see if my opening case stands up under scrutiny in which

I demonstrated that there's very good reason to think the bodily resurrection of the dead is in our future. Thanks.

All right. Thank you. Very good. Exactly eight minutes. Very, very good. Now we're going to bring in Michael here and I'm going to reset the clock and we're going to start in five, four, three, two, one.

It's all yours. Thanks. I'd like to start out by simply asserting some affirmative points to clarify my rebuttal of Chris's thoughts and his proposed statement this evening.

I do believe in resurrection. Actually, in contrast to Chris's affirmative, I do not believe that eternal life is something that we have to wait for or that any person who was sanctified in Christ has ever had to wait for.

Chris cited John 3, 16 to be about physical death, which therefore means you do not yet possess the gift of God.

Jesus Christ said that he is the resurrection, John 11, 25, and even declared that those who believe in him will never die and have passed from death to life.

See John chapter five, chapter 11 and first John chapter three, verse 14.

I do believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ as the sign of Jonah, a prophetic picture of transformation to that generation, as said by Jesus Christ in John 12, verse 40.

And I do believe in bodily resurrection, the bodily resurrection promised to the saints. However, the issue this evening is that Chris is affirming a rather inconsistent, imposed individual view of what the general resurrection was.

He is asserting the overcoming of physical death rather than that covenantal fellowship death that is found all throughout the scriptures.

Furthermore, it seems as though Chris has not only failed to rightly identify what the hope of Israel was as per the apocalyptic prophetic hopes of the law and the prophets.

He's also compounded his confusion by focusing on apologetics toward ancient Greek philosophies rather than those heretical ideas that captivated many during the first century, the time of the

New Testament letters. While a case can be made for Paul arguing against Grecian thought in Acts chapter 17, the bulk of the arguments regarding the resurrection of the dead in the

New Testament are against Jewish heresies, thus the constant citing of Old Testament texts and Paul marking out the false teachers in Second Corinthians chapter 11, as well as Philippians chapter 3 as Judaizers.

Those saying the coming of the Lord had already occurred, those who said that those who fell asleep prior to the time of the coming of the

Lord had no hope, those who said that the resurrection had already occurred were

Judaizers, not Greeks. Keep in mind, during the 500 years of silence, a host of views regarding God resurrecting his people, the hope of Israel, were formed amongst the

Jews, including the development of the Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection. Simply put, the understanding of the general resurrection was not easily or universally understood as much as Chris has made it seem.

Chris's shifting the focus from Jewish heresies and issues to Greek thought actually demonstrates some of the issues found within the early church fathers in church history, especially in regards to apologetics.

How and why did understanding of these things become so distorted and divided as they are even up till this day?

I'd rather appreciate a thought I read recently in an article from Chris, as he mentioned being, and I paraphrase, willing to accept what we see the

Bible clearly teaches, even if it means believing contrary to what the majority of Christians have taught for many hundreds of years.

He went on to say, on the other hand, the insights God gave to teachers throughout church history from the apostolic era onward are meant to build us up and to equip us.

They are not to be ignored. It would seem that most of the focus of the first three centuries of the church's existence after the first century was upon proof of Christ's existence.

Christ's messianic stature, being persecuted, emphasizing kingdom life, etc., rather than offering up a clear eschatological view.

Or, as I mentioned in my opening, discerning the Jewishness of the gospel and the details. This becomes evident when you see various disagreements arise in church history, and which has continued up till this day regarding the nature of the last days and the past and future variations of the coming of the

Lord, the nature of the resurrection of the dead, the state of man after biological death, and various other eschatological or last days details.

Also, contrary to the superficial traditional view that is offered by many today, if one was to honestly sit in and listen to most

Christian leadership and pastors talk through these things, the details are, even up until this day, hardly unified.

Christ will claim this is a smoke screen or a red herring offered by the full preterist, because in the very least, in their rampant confusion, they all agree that there's a future coming of Jesus and a resurrection of the dead.

I'll quote Timothy James. He says, the silence of the period after the destruction was a direct result of the downfall and captivity of the

Jewish nation. Along with its end, the Jewish Christians were scattered and became almost lost to history.

If any literature was written by them after the fall of Jerusalem that taught the return of Christ in that event, there is good reason to believe that it was suppressed or beyond the understanding of the dominant

Gentile church. End quote. I would even go on as far as to highlight the shift toward the arguments against Gnostic thought and philosophy, which began to plague the church in the second century as reason for why things became so confusing.

Chris began with arguments regarding the physical nature of man, which I believe to be erroneous, imposing perspectives upon the scripture, especially the hope of the resurrection.

If Chris's assertions regarding the resurrection of the dead are true, how could Hymenaeus and Thelitis have convinced anyone that the resurrection had already occurred?

Why couldn't Paul just simply say, look around, do you see dead people? Or let's go to the tomb and look.

Rather, what he does is cites Old Testament texts. Why would Paul even have to say,

I have not attained to the resurrection in Philippians chapter three, if it was understood to be a time when everyone would receive some new individual body of sorts that could hardly be unnoticed.

Chris sure did a lot of proof texting, which means citing a lot of Bible verses, for those of you that need clarity on what that means.

But many of them were mentioned outside of the literary context they're found in. Many, many contemporary scholars would agree using

Genesis 2 -7 in regards to the nature of man is debatable at best. In Christian theological circles, this is referred to as biblical anthropology, and it is as divided as understanding eschatology is.

Not to mention how we should be reading the creation texts of Genesis chapters one through three. These are all currently on the table for discussion in many

Christian communities. Citations of Ezekiel 37 and Revelation 11 in regards to dead bodies being given life is simply

Chris taking apocalyptic texts and abusing them for his own points, points that many

Christians, not only full preterists, would disagree with. All right.

Thank you so much. That concludes the rebuttal period. And now we are going to really what is going to be,

I think, the most not that what has already been presented is not interesting, but this is what many believe is the most interesting part of debates.

And that is the cross examination where each debater will be able to get into some of the nitty gritty of these issues that have already been presented.

So just real quick for folks, just to give you kind of a proper context here, this cross examination will be 30 minutes for each debater.

So one debater will be controlling the 30 minutes in which they'll be asking questions of the opponent and the opponent is to answer directly and as concisely as possible.

No skipping, no jumping, no dodging. Please address the issue as best as you can.

If I do feel as though there is some skipping, hopping and jumping, I will jump in and redirect the cross examination so that we can focus on the issues here.

OK, so first up will be Chris controlling the cross examination for a half hour.

And I'm going to reset the clock here. And I would like to say you guys are doing a wonderful job with the clock.

And so I very much appreciate that. OK, so I'm going to disappear just in a moment here. So 30 minutes starting now, beginning with Chris Date.

All right, first, let me just say, Peter Grice said in the comments, why do we need to be crossed with each other? Let's do a kind examination.

And yeah, I agree. Let's do a kind examination, not a cross examination. Nevertheless, I do want to press hard.

And I want to begin by asking you, Michael, just since you believe that the resurrection has already taken place, would you agree based on 2

Timothy 2, 17 to 18, that if it hasn't taken place, that therefore your view is gangrenous and is ruining people's faiths?

If you're wrong about it having already taken place, would you agree? I just think that's an erroneous text to use to try to assert that, because again.

But again, the question is, if the resurrection of the dead has not yet taken place, would you agree that what

Paul says in 2 Timothy 2 would mean that your view is gangrenous and ruins people's faiths? Well, sure,

I don't know that text. No, that was the question.

I just wanted listeners to hear that second question on Facebook. I posted recently what I said in my opening presentation about the

Gnostic likeness of your view. And you seemed to affirm that, sure, your view is similar to Gnosticism in these ways.

I just want to repeat those and make sure you acknowledge for the many people watching this debate that these are ways in which your view is like Gnosticism.

First, you don't believe that bodies are essential to human nature. Second, you deny that Christ still has a physical body.

And third, you believe that in this physical world, evil, pain, disease, and death will last for eternity.

Is that correct? Yes, I can agree with those. Thank you. So I just want you viewers to hear that this debate is not an isolated issue on resurrection.

As Sam Frost, former hyperpaterist, has often said, when you accept this view, there's a reason that it's gangrenous and ruins faiths.

It's because it results in your whole worldview radically changing from anything Christianity has ever known.

All right. Now, next question. You said that you disagree with my statement about human nature being—living human nature being embodied in breathing.

And I understand that you take Genesis 2 -7 with the breath of life and so forth as being sort of symbolism or something.

I'm imagining that you're some sort of theistic evolutionist, and that's fine. But does that mean that you don't think that human beings and other creatures are nefesh hayah?

I'm not a theistic evolutionist. And I do believe that other living—again,

I believe it's erroneous to use the text of Genesis 1 -3 in that fashion at all. My question is, do you think that living human beings and other creatures are nefesh hayah?

Living creatures. Living beings. Revealed in the Hebrew. Is a disembodied human that has gone to heaven and will remain there for eternity a nefesh hayah?

Yeah. Yeah? Can you show me anywhere where nefesh hayah refers to a disembodied creature?

No, no. Not to my—not right off the top of my head. Again, I believe that's an erroneous way to use that text. So that's why.

Okay. So notice, as you'll know, I didn't only quote the early chapters of Genesis. I also quoted the flood narrative.

I'm imagining maybe you don't take that literally either, in which everything on dry land and whose nostrils was the breath of life died.

Do you think that those texts don't also indicate that nefesh hayah have the breath of life? I do believe that there was a global—a flood.

I don't believe a global flood, for that matter. I do take it literally. And I do believe that living creatures are nefesh hayah.

Absolutely. Living—well, but you also believe disembodied creatures are nefesh hayah, even though no scripture says so.

So my question for you is, what—when—this text in Genesis 6 and 7 that I quoted in my opening presentation says that when flesh that had the breath of life in it has the breath of life removed, that's the same message in—that

I quoted from Job 34 and Psalm 104, flesh perishes. So do you agree with those texts?

That when flesh has the breath of life taken from it, the creature perishes? I disagree with using poetic texts to try to form a doctrine on what the—

Hey, listen. Michael, please answer the question I'm asking. My question is, does

Genesis 6 and 7 and Job 34 and Psalm 104 indicate that flesh that no longer has the breath of life dies?

Job and Psalms are incorrect places to go to try to— Michael, could you please answer the question? I am answering your question,

Chris. I'm trying to help you see here that that is an erroneous way to go about it. The question is, do you think that Genesis 6, 7,

Job 34, and Psalm 104 indicate that when a creature that is embodied no longer has the breath of life, that creature dies?

No. Thank you. That was the answer to the question I was looking for. Let's move on to the second point that I made, which is that salvation guarantees believers will overcome death and live embodied forever.

And I began with John 3, 16. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish. Can you point me to anywhere where Apollo in the middle voice is used in the synoptic

Gospels or Gospel of John to refer to something other than physically dying when it's used in the middle voice of a human being?

Well, I guess I would use that text. I would say that if we believe in Jesus Christ, we've passed from death to life.

Okay. Well, in my opening presentation, I cited Matthew 8, 25, 26, 52, Mark 4, 38,

Luke 8, 24, 11, 51, 13, 3, 5, 33, 15, 17, Acts 5, 37, 1 Corinthians 10, 9 to 10, 2

Peter 3, 6 and Jude 11, all of which Apollo is in the middle voice and refers to human beings perishing, literally dying.

My question for you is, can you point to any text in which Apollo is used in the middle voice of human beings where it clearly does not refer to physically perishing?

Again, we'd be reading those texts differently. Can you point me to any that clearly? Okay. Thank you.

Next question. When Jesus, in the two verses previous to John 3, 16,

Jesus compares himself to Moses' bronze statue, this is what he says.

He says, I'm pulling it up here, one second.

He says, so in verse 14 of John 3, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the

Son of Man be lifted up that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. And what he's doing is referring to Numbers 21, 9, which says,

Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole, and if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

My first question is, do you agree that looking at that bronze serpent meant that a person who was bitten by an otherwise fatally venomous snake wouldn't die, but would instead literally have his or her life saved, his physical life saved?

Would you agree? In regards to Numbers 21, absolutely. Okay. So that's what Jesus says in verses 14 and 15 of John 3.

What reason do we have for thinking that he suddenly, jarringly shifts from physical death and life to something other than physical death and life?

Is there any contextual reason for thinking that he makes that sudden jump? Absolutely. The understanding of types and anti -types.

I said in the context of this text. Okay. I'm sorry, guys.

It's fine that you're asking the questions in such a rapid pace. I understand how that works in cross -examination, but you're going to have to let

Michael just get out his comments first before you bring about your contention, okay?

All right. All right. So the question I asked, and I'll let you answer, hopefully you'll get to the answer more quickly, is what in the context of John 3, 14 to 16 indicates that he's shifting from physical death and life to something other than physical death and life?

Well, the beginning of the text where he's talking to Nicodemus and he begins to talk about the new birth. That would be a great place to start in regards to type and anti -type, what sort of death we're dealing with here in the text.

Would you like me to go ahead and read the text? No, if you'd like to during your time, you can. In Genesis 3, 22 and 23, the tree of life, at least in the text itself, if you want to take it as some sort of poetry or whatever, you're certainly welcome to do so.

But nevertheless, what's depicted is that having their access to the tree of life revoked guarantees that Adam and Eve eventually physically die.

That tree of life reappears in the closing chapters of Revelation where I argued that it therefore symbolizes the saved will physically live forever as Adam and Eve would have done.

What reason do we have for thinking that the tree of life secures something other than everlasting life?

Because Jesus said he is the resurrection and that if you believe in him, you pass from death into life. Okay, I'll let you ask me about that during cross -examination if you'd like.

Can you explain to me how the so all throughout Isaiah, and I put this up on the slide during my opening presentation,

Isaiah 6, 1, 14, 28, 38, 18, 53, 12, 8, 19, 22, 2, 13, and 37, 36, and 38, 1.

All throughout Isaiah, Isaiah uses the word mavet, which means death, and verbal cognates from the same root to refer to physical death.

Why then should we think he will swallow up death forever is something other than physical death? Because the way that the

New Testament writers use those texts is highlighting that there was first a natural death that was revealed, and then there's a spiritual death or a spiritual fellowship that is being restored.

So again, there's a lot of pictures in the Old Testament of, again in prophetic literature, of physical death, but they're pictures.

That's the entire point of the Old Testament being a type. So again, in the New Testament, we would understand the way that New Testament writers are using those

Old Testament texts to understand the fellowship, you know, unity that man is gaining with God, the eternal life.

If that's true, then why when, so first of all, just to be clear so the viewers know what you just said, you said there isn't anything in the context of Isaiah 26 that indicates this is the one place where he uses the word death differently.

So then let's turn to its quotations in the New Testament. In all throughout 1 Corinthians 15,

Thanatos and its verbal cognates like Apothnesko refer to the ordinary physical death Christ died. Why then should we think that's not what he is saying is going to be destroyed or caused to cease to happen in 1

Corinthians 15, 26, given that he quotes the text we just looked at from Isaiah just a few verses later?

Because again, there's an entire argument taking place in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 that you would have to follow. Okay, what about when

John quotes this passage from Isaiah in Revelation 21, 4, when he says he will swallow up death forever, or sorry, that's what

Isaiah says, and we'll wipe away tears from all faces. And then John says he will wipe away every tear from their eyes and death shall be no more.

Again, Thanatos and Apothnesko, this language all throughout Revelation refers to physical death. Why does it mean something different here?

Well, if we read the text in its entirety there in Revelation 21, the conclusion of that verse that you just mentioned says, because the old order has passed away.

And when we understand the language of old earth, you know, the old heaven and earth and the new heaven and new earth, it becomes rather clear what death and what tears and what mourning needed to pass away according to the old order.

Okay, so that justifies assuming that he's using Thanatos differently than he does everywhere else in Revelation?

Again, because there's a type and an antitype. All right, what about Romans 6, 23, the wages of sin is death,

Thanatos? Leading up to Romans 6, 23, he's used Thanatos to refer to the physical death of Christ.

And immediately after Romans 6, 23, he uses Apothnesko and the word zao, which is the verbal cognate of zoe, to refer to physical life and death.

So why should we assume that in Romans 6, 23, Paul means something different by death and life than he does elsewhere in this epistle?

All throughout Romans, he's talking about the law of the sin that comes from the sin and death that is magnified by the law.

Romans 5, 10, reconciled to God by the death of his son. Romans 6, 3, baptized into his death.

Romans 6, 5, united with him in a death like his. These aren't referring to, or is it your contention that this isn't, in fact, referring to Christ's physical death, but some other sort of death that is never talked about?

Sure, it's talking about Christ's physical death. Salvation of the saints is contingent upon the death of Christ, absolutely.

Okay, so when an author like Paul is using thanatos and apothnesko, zoe and zao to refer to ordinary physical life leading into and out of the text that we're looking at, what justifies this sudden jarring leap from ordinary physical life and death to some other kind of life and death that isn't introduced in the context when the author has already been using this language in a particular way?

That's what I'm trying to understand. I'm going to go ahead and turn to Romans 6. Again, that's a text that's been discussed quite a bit.

So in the text, what verse are you speaking about here about the, what specific text?

Romans 6, 23. 6, 23, all right. So let's look at Romans 6, 5, for if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, this living people being united with him in the likeness of his death, yet, so they're saying that's a physical death there.

Yeah, his death. And these people did indeed die, many of them in martyrdom.

We have become, we have become united with him in the likeness of his death.

But also we will, future tense, be united with him in a resurrection like his. Right.

Well, again, we've already qualified that the resurrection was in the future. Absolutely. Passed to this audience.

And his resurrection is a reference to his physically coming back to life, correct?

Right. The sign of John. Okay. So in what sense is a non -physical resurrection like the resurrection of Jesus, which

Paul says here, we will be united with him in? Say that again?

We shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. You already, you just admitted that that's referring to a future resurrection of believers.

But Jesus rose physically, and you're saying the resurrection is something other than that. So what does it even mean to say we'll be united with him in a resurrection like his if we're not going to be physically raised as he was?

That's a good question because I believe the next verse kind of qualifies what Romans 6 -5 is getting at.

I'll just read both of them. This, if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, certainly we shall also be like him in the likeness of his resurrection.

And again, Christian theologians would assert that the likeness of his death is being baptized, knowing this, that our old self was crucified.

This is not speaking about them one day physically dying like Jesus Christ physically died. It's being united with Christ, yes, in his physical death, but you being united with him in a manner of dying that death that Galatians is speaking about.

The text also says we were buried with Christ. Amen. In what sense have we been buried?

Baptism. Okay, so you're saying the burial Christ had, we participate in that in a burial like his, which is in fact baptism.

Are you suggesting that baptism is a burial like his? No, I'm saying that we participate in his death by being baptized.

That's what Romans 6 is asserting. But you said we shall certainly be united with Christ in a resurrection like his.

That's what Paul says. And we agreed, I think, that he's talking about the physical resurrection of Jesus. And you said that what it means to be raised in a resurrection like his isn't to be physically raised.

It's this coming back to spiritual life that we experience in the here and now. But then it would follow logically, therefore, that if we're buried in a burial like his, that would be the baptism.

So are you saying that baptism is our participation in a burial like his? Yes. All right.

Good to know. So when, so let's see, let me move on to the next part of my opening statement.

So you, what does it mean that Christ was the first fruits, the apartheid of those who have fallen asleep, meaning the first fruits of the people to be raised from the dead?

What does it mean that his physical resurrection was the first fruits of the rest of the dead?

In what sense is it first fruits for him to physically rise, but nobody else will? Well, I would disagree with that.

I don't believe Christ was the first fruits of the physical resurrection. I believe it's revealed all throughout the Old Testament that people physically rose from the dead.

Okay. But he's the only one to have raised immortal, right? Sure. You're saying like death.

So, so if, so Christ's first, if Christ rose from the dead and he was the first, in fact, Paul says he was the first to rise from the dead in Acts 26, 23.

So, I mean, if you want to dispute against Paul, you're certainly welcome to. But the question I have for you is all throughout 1

Corinthians 15, beginning from verse four, Paul has been using agado to refer to the physical raising of Christ from the dead.

And he says that Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Doesn't that sound as if the resurrection of Christ is the first example of the rest of those who are dead?

No, these would be people that would be very familiar with the Old Testament. Doesn't sound anything like it. So what does it mean if it says

Christ has been raised from the dead as the first fruits? And are you suggesting, let me ask you this, are you suggesting that agado here in 1

Corinthians 15, 20 isn't about Christ's physical resurrection? No, I'm not asserting that.

I believe that there's definite details in 1 Corinthians 15 that are asserting that the resurrection of the dead ones is contingent upon the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Okay. But if the resurrection that is contingent upon his physical resurrection isn't physical, how is he the first fruits of it?

Because there was, well, he's the first fruits. No, that's again, they're switching an argument there in 1 Corinthians 15 when it talks about Christ being the first fruits.

There's various arguments taking place within 1 Corinthians 15. That's why we see numerous questions being positive.

In a single verse, Paul says, Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of others.

Right. The word first fruits is the first of a set, and he's connecting this to the raising from the dead that Christ experienced.

So what I'm asking you is, in what sense is Christ's physical resurrection the first fruits of other resurrections?

Again, I believe I've said to you that Christ's physical resurrection was not the demonstration of him being the first fruit.

That was the sign of Jonah to that generation. Okay. So I just want listeners to hear that you're breaking apart verse 20 into two halves and treating them as if they're not related to one each other.

Let's talk about Acts 6, 26, 23 then. You said you don't believe that Christ was the first to be raised, but doesn't

Paul say he was in Acts 26, 23? That Christ was to suffer and that by reason of his resurrection from the dead, he would be the first to proclaim light both to the

Jewish people and to the Gentiles. That does not say that he would be the first to raise from the dead. Actually, it does.

So the Greek is a protos ex anastasios, if he's the first from the dead. Right.

A protos ex anastasios necron. Right. If by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the

Gentiles. What translation are you reading from there? NASB. So the

NASB says, okay, so the NASB, you're right, does switch the order of the

Greek. How competent are you in Greek? Not so much that I'd care to confuse anybody listening that probably is not fluent in the

Greek. So, all right, well, let's look at just English translations. I mean, I've already quoted the Greek. It literally says if he being the first to rise from the dead, but in the

English, the English Standard Version, by being the first to rise from the dead, the NIV, the first to rise from the dead, the

NLT, the first to rise from the dead, the RSV, first to rise from the dead, NRSV, first to rise from the dead,

King James, first to rise from the dead, and on and on. I mean, how many translations do you want before you acknowledge that the

Greek says Jesus was the first to rise from the dead? Well, nobody's in disagreement with you that Christ was the first to rise from the dead.

You just told me a few minutes ago that he wasn't the first to rise from the dead. He was the first to rise physically from the dead. You assert that he was talking about physical death there.

Okay, so you think anastasios here isn't his physical resurrection? No, I believe the anastasios nekproi, that raising again of the dead ones, the standing again of the dead ones, is not talking about physical resurrection.

It's contingent upon the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Amen. The text says he was the first risen from the dead.

So my question for you is, and the word here is anastasios, and it's a word that he has used elsewhere throughout

Acts, Acts 122, 231, and others, to refer to Christ's physical resurrection from the dead.

What reason do we have for thinking that his being first to rise from the dead here means something other than him being first to have risen physically from the dead, when that's what he's used the word anastasios to refer to all throughout

Acts? I'm going to go ahead and do this the old -fashioned way. I'm turning there in another translation here because, again,

I— Which translation? Well, now I'm just going to look at the King James. Good old trusted King James. 2613 we're talking about.

No, 23. Sorry, 2623. That Christ should suffer and that he should be first, that should rise from the dead, and should show forth the light unto the

Gentiles. Right. The resurrection from the dead that's being spoken about here is going to be that which is going to be in fulfillment of the law and the prophets and is going to bring light to the

Gentiles. Okay. Right? So him rising from the dead here isn't a reference to his physical resurrection?

No, no. This is in reference to Christ confirming the promises given to the circumcision so that the

Gentiles might glorify God, Romans 15 .8. Okay. Is there anywhere leading up to this passage in Acts where Luke uses this word anastasios to refer to any raising of Christ other than his physical resurrection?

I'm sorry, can you repeat that one more time? Sure. Leading up to Acts 26 .23, can you point me to anywhere where Luke uses the word anastasios of Christ to refer to something other than his physical resurrection from the dead?

No. Thank you. I'm not familiar with the word anastasios all throughout

Acts. Okay. Well, I mean, starting from the beginning, Acts 1 .22, Peter says, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us, this isn't

Peter, this is the disciples trying to pick an 11th, I mean a 12th to replace Judas. And then at the end of verse 22 in chapter 1, one of these men must become with us a witness to Christ's anastasis.

Would you agree that's his physical resurrection from the dead? Acts 2 .31, David foresaw and spoke about the resurrection, the anastasis of the

Christ that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. Is that the physical resurrection of Christ?

We spoke of the resurrection of Christ that is so known.

So when it says his flesh didn't see corruption, you think that's just, that's not part of the resurrection, the anastasis he's just referred to?

His flesh didn't see corruption. Let's pick up a couple of verses. Verse 29, brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch

David that he both died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day, being therefore a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection, the anastasis of the

Christ that he was not abandoned to Hades. And that's, soul is not a great reference here, or translation here, but either way, nor did his flesh see corruption.

So would you not agree, given what he's just talked about, David having died, being buried in his tomb remaining to us to this day, contrast with Christ who has risen from the dead and his flesh didn't see corruption, that therefore the anastasis here in verse 31 is

Christ's physical resurrection? No. Okay. Let's see here. What about chapter 4, verse 33, with great power, the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection, the anastasis of the

Lord Jesus. That's not about his physical resurrection. I'm sorry, repeat the verse. Acts 4, 33, with great power, the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the

Lord Jesus. That's not about his resurrection from the dead physically. Absolutely is. Okay, so do we just pick and choose where in the text an anastasis refers to his physical resurrection versus some other kind of resurrection?

No, not at all. What we would do, though, when they're quoting Old Testament texts, such as in Acts chapter 2, we would probably want to go back to,

I believe that's Psalm 16, and we'd want to understand what's going on there and what death Christ was going to overcome at birth fruits, and then find out what anastasis is going to mean in those texts.

Doesn't Peter say in referring to David that his flesh, the Christ's flesh, didn't see corruption?

Do you really think that's not a reference to his physical resurrection? Well, I can't ask you a question in that regard.

All right. No. Okay, let's shift gears and talk about the contrast between Jewish and Greek views of the afterlife.

When Paul is standing at the Areopagus in Acts chapter 17, and he speaks of the anistemi of Christ, when the

Greek philosophers, they hear of that anastasis from the dead, they mock. Why do they mock?

Again, I would agree with your assertion there that he's speaking to, he's in Athens, right? He's there in that region, so he could definitely be speaking about the

Greeks and their, as you pointed out very well, their denial of the resurrection of the dead. Okay, so let me just make sure

I understand this. In the first century, the Greeks thought it was foolish to say somebody would rise from the dead.

Paul is here standing up before them saying, no, God has given assurance of what I'm talking about by raising

Christ physically from the dead. A few chapters later, he talks about Christ's physical resurrection from the dead.

But in between, you've got places where he's hopping back and forth between Christ's physical resurrection and some other kind of resurrection.

Is that what you're saying? Absolutely. It's important to listen to the audience, to note the audience that's listening to the preaching going on and how they look at the details.

Okay, so to continue my thought here then, so in the first century, the Greeks think bodily resurrection from the dead is foolish.

Paul, the author of Hebrews, however, says that the Jewish people had examples of people rising physically.

Let's talk about that. Let's talk about Hebrews 11, verse 1. Now, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

By it, sorry, actually go to verses 31 to 32. Sorry, 31 to 32.

No, I'm in the wrong. Hold on, bear with me here. Sorry, Hebrews 1, verse 35.

It says, women received back their dead by resurrection. That's anastasis.

Would you agree that that's a reference to first kings and second kings when mothers received their physically brought back to life children?

I just want to correct. You're talking about Hebrews 11, verse 35. Thank you.

I apologize. That's right. Yeah, I would agree with that. Absolutely. It's talking about women receiving their physical dead back from.

Okay, in the very same verse, he goes on to say, some were tortured, refusing to accept release so that they might receive a better anastasis.

So is that anastasis a different, not a physical anastasis, even though he just used it to refer to the physical anastasis that people had recorded in the old, in the

Tanakh? So absolutely,

I do think there's a different picture going on there. Again, it's using the first fruits of the, you know, those are the people that died physically.

Yes. And the better resurrection is going to be contingent upon the fact that there is a physical resurrection from the dead of Christ.

But the better resurrection isn't physical. No. So even though he's, would you agree that the author is likely to referring to such phenomena as what's recorded in 2nd

Maccabees 7? In 2nd Maccabees 7, you've got this series of Jewish brothers who willingly submit to death by torture.

And the reason they do it is because they're looking forward to the day when God will give them back their life and breath and even their tongues and hands.

And that's why they humbly submit to death by torture. You're saying, would you agree that that text in 2nd

Maccabees 7 is an expression of Jewish belief in bodily resurrection? So we're using a text that's during the intertestamental period of confusion.

And we're asserting that that's what Hebrews is getting at, rather than understanding the better reality that Hebrews is getting at.

You can make statements and ask me questions during your time. I've got 45 seconds left, less than that. My question for you is, in 2nd

Maccabees 7, when the brothers submit to death by torture so they can get their tongue, hands, life, and breath back, would you agree that they're exhibiting trust that they will one day rise physically from the dead?

They're exhibiting that there will be a better resurrection. A physical resurrection. What? No. Okay, so in what sense do they think they're going to get their tongues and hands back?

Who knows? Yeah, all right. I think my time's up. We'll go ahead and move on. Well, you actually have a—never mind.

We're not going to get anywhere in 5 seconds, so let's just move on. Okay, all right. Let me reset here, and just real quick for the audience.

Again, there's going to be a Q &A section at the back end of this debate, and so the debaters will be taking those live as you send them in.

So please, if you have any questions, please type them in, and I will try my best to get to them so that they can be addressed, all right?

Without further ado, I'm just going to remove myself here. And Michael, you can start right now.

Chris, do you see the correlation between the time statements in Matthew 16, verses 27 through 28, that some standing there would be alive to see the reward that was promised and how that correlates to Revelation 22, 12?

I don't see anything here about a reward that was promised. He says there were some standing here who will not taste death until they see the

Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Verse 28. Go ahead and look at this. As a preterist of the historical variety,

I do believe that people had not yet died before they saw the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Because as you know,

Jesus will go on to tell the high priest, I believe it is, from this day on, from now on, you will see the

Son of Man coming in his kingdom. So I agree with you there. That was indeed fulfilled in the first century.

If I may just read you the verse. For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels and will repay every man according to his deeds.

Truly I say to you, there are some who are standing here, will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

So my point is that, let's take out reward. He will repay every man according to what he has done, which correlates with Revelation 22, 12.

No, I don't think that repay each person according to what he has done is here a reference to an event that would take place within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries.

What Jesus says is that people in the lifetime of his contemporaries will see his coming in his kingdom.

A present tense verb, which has to do with continuity. His whole, the whole time from the 70

A .D. until now is Christ coming into his kingdom. And that's why texts like Daniel and Revelation, Daniel 2 and Nebuchadnezzar's dream and Daniel 7 and his dream of the beasts.

The coming into his kingdom is a process that gets bigger and bigger and bigger as the gospel spreads across the whole world.

It's not a one time, one and done event. Okay, so verse 27 is not connected to verse 28.

And not, not in the immediate sense in which you're trying to say that it is. No. Okay. So let's let you mention

Daniel. Let's talk about Daniel. So Daniel identifies that the resurrection of those that will go on to eternal life and the resurrection of those that will experience eternal condemnation happens at the destruction of the power of the holy people.

How would you respond to that? I'm not convinced as Kenneth Gentry is that this is a similar to Ezekiel 37, which is a picture depicting resurrection, but symbolizing national restoration.

Kenneth Gentry, as you know, thinks that this text is likewise. I'm not convinced of that. But even if I were to become convinced of it, that's no problem because both

Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12 were understood by at least partially by some intertestamental

Jews, as we saw in the Talmud and other places as referring to physical resurrection as well. So as I said in my rebuttal to your opening statement, there's this already not yet dynamic going on where the national restoration of Israel in the remnants belief in Christ is the already, but its fruition will come about in the physical resurrection of the dead, which is what

Isaiah 25 and 26 talk about. Okay. So there was a resurrection or something to that effect that some destruction of some holy people.

I don't know about a destruction of a holy people, but well, in 70 AD, certainly the Jewish people were millions of them were killed.

And the Jerusalem temple was destroyed. Yes. Okay. And a resurrection unto eternal life and to eternal condemnation.

I think, again, the resurrection as a symbol for restoration is, in fact, something that has already happened in the sense that Paul talks about Romans 9 to 11, where the remnant follows

Christ and believes, which is true Israel. And that's also, you know, you see you see

Peter quoting something similar in Acts, the prophecy from Joel and so forth. So, yeah,

I think that what the resurrection of Ezekiel 37, and if this is also a symbol here in Daniel 12, what they represent, that reality did, in fact, start in the first century.

Would you agree with the rendering of 1 Corinthians 15, where it says first comes the natural and then comes the spiritual as a way to understand resurrection?

So we see a natural death and then a spiritual death? No, he doesn't characterize death as natural and spiritual.

No, he doesn't characterize death as natural and spiritual. He characterizes the resurrection body as spiritual and the body that dies as natural.

Right. So there's going to be a resurrection of a natural body and then a resurrection of a spiritual body. No, he never says that the natural body is raised.

He says that what is sown, hosperes, the grammatical subject, what is sown is sown a natural body.

It is raised, that is, the physical body that goes into the ground is raised a spiritual body.

Okay. Are you aware of 1 Peter 4, 6 through 7?

I'm sure you are aware. It mentions the goal of all things has drawn near, and I know you've mentioned you are a preterist, so you pay attention to these time statements.

What end or goal of all things was near as per 1 Peter 4, 6 through 7?

The kingdom of Christ, his coming into his kingdom, sitting at the right hand of God, and the beginning of his gospels spread across the globe as we see in the visions of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, and John.

How many goals are there in Scripture? Telos can apply to a whole lot of things.

Let's switch there. By the way, sorry, it's not my time. I apologize. You can go ahead and finish your thought. You're more gracious than I am.

I appreciate that. The other thing is this word tapanta, all things, is something that is never universal as in everything full stop.

It's a contextual thing, so we would have to do some nitty -gritty exegesis to figure out what all things whose

Telos Peter is talking about here. I appreciate you taking note of that. How many hopes are there in Scripture?

There's all sorts of hopes, but the quintessential hope is hope in the resurrection from the dead. Ephesians 4, 4, there's one hope.

Well, but again, this isn't a context. What verse? Ephesians 4, 4. Yeah, you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one

Lord, one faith, one baptism. It says just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, so we're called to that one hope, and that hope includes one

Lord, one faith, one baptism. I'm not sure I follow where you're getting at. What the apostle

Paul is explaining there is, and I believe Christians across the board would unanimously agree, is that there's one

Father, one Lord, one faith. These are all statements of unity, of one being there, being one thing that is being revealed through the

Scriptures, and he says there's one hope. Again, how that would correlate to what the apostle Paul says, that he's been on trial for preaching the hope of Israel, the resurrection of the dead.

First of all, I haven't yet seen where you're connecting this one hope to something that would be fulfilled in the first century, but secondly,

I'll just add, to say there's one hope doesn't necessarily mean that there's one single solitary event in which you hope.

It can refer to the whole Christian eschatological package, which would include things that happen in the first century, the restoration of the remnant of Israel through Christ, the spread of the gospel across the world, and finally culminating in the resurrection from the dead.

So you wouldn't agree with what the apostle Paul said, that he preaches the one hope of Israel, the hope that is revealed through the law and the prophets.

You obviously know I'm not going to agree that I disagree with Paul, so maybe you can rephrase your question. So in Acts chapters 24 and 26, the apostle

Paul, and also chapter 28, which are all correlating, talking about hope, the apostle

Paul makes it clear that he's preached nothing other than that which is revealed in the law and the prophets. And then in Acts chapter 28, after he goes on trial in Acts 24 and 26, he says that he's been on trial for the hope of Israel.

So my question is, is that the one hope of Ephesians 4 .4, or is there another hope?

I think the one hope of resurrection of the dead can be included within the larger package that Peter is talking about.

And I'll just add that this idea... Sorry, I thought I just heard some weird artifact, some echo or something.

Anyway, nevermind. I've already covered what I was about to say in my opening. Okay, I want to bring your attention back to Romans 6.

In Romans 6 verse 23, it says, for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ.

Do you believe that we have the free gift of God today? In the sense that we have an inheritance, yes, which is the language in which the

New Testament uses that language. So you wouldn't agree that that eternal life is the eternal life that was gained if we go two chapters later in Romans 8, he says, for the law of spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.

Yeah. So wouldn't they be... If we have the gift of eternal life now, we've been set free from the law of sin and death.

Even if you have it in the sense of having an inheritance, meaning you have the Holy Spirit indwelling you if you're a believer and you believe in the future physical resurrection of the dead, you have the

Holy Spirit inside of you as a promise, as a seal, guaranteeing that you will receive the inheritance that you already have in the sense of having an inheritance now.

So your future eternal life is so... Which by the way, is in our future, which is why

Jesus says in Matthew 21 to 46, then you will enter into eternal life. We can have it as an inheritance now.

I can say I've got an inheritance, but I actually obtain it when my parents died to use the language of inheritance.

Well, likewise, we have the promise that guarantees our future eternal life. And as such, we have an inheritance waiting in store for us and we will obtain it at the resurrection from the dead.

So the resurrection of the dead that the Apostle Paul preached was found in the Law and the Prophets, correct? Just as the intertestamental

Jews that he's using the same, even the seed analogy in 1 Corinthians 15, they all thought the same thing.

Yes, the physical resurrection of the dead was to be found in the Law and the Prophets. In Matthew chapter five, Jesus said that not one jot or tittle will pass from the

Law until it is all fulfilled. Now, how can we say that we're not under the Law of Moses, which

I assume you believe we're not under the Law of Moses? It depends on what you mean by we're not under the Law of Moses.

I certainly don't think we are judged by it. We're not found guilty by it, sure. Do you wear polyester?

Do you wear polyester? I don't think polyester is what is being talked about in the mixed fabrics, but I don't eat pork and I don't eat shellfish.

Okay, you believe that's an obligation, according to Scripture? No, I just said we don't. I just said I don't. Because Jesus says that if you teach someone to violate even the least of these commands.

Right, but he's talking about his commands. Okay, so now we're going back to Matthew chapter five.

Matthew chapter five, he says that not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law. Jot and tittle are the smallest letters or smallest demarcations, if you will, we found within the

Jewish alphabet, correct? Well, they're more like little pieces of the letters. It's not any individual letter, it's pieces of letters.

That's how small they are, yes. Right, an apostrophe. Yeah, well, more like the serifs on serif fonts, but yes.

So a sentence in the Law where it says something like, you shall not eat pork, we'll use that.

So what Jesus is saying here is that those things will not pass away until all are fulfilled. Yet we're still waiting for certain things that are revealed, i .e.

the hope of Israel, the resurrection of the dead, to be fulfilled. Sure, because Christ fulfilled it for us.

Our righteousness isn't our own, it's in Christ. But Jesus Christ said that not one jot or tittle will pass from the

Law. And it hasn't. I don't think that it has in the sense that I think you're talking about.

The reason that we are not condemned by failing to obey the Mosaic Law isn't because the

Mosaic Law has passed away, in my opinion. I think it's because Christ fulfilled it. My righteousness is in him.

I will be declared innocent not because I am either failing or succeeding to obey the Mosaic Law. I'm going to be found innocent because Christ is innocent, because he did obey that law.

Okay, what is the Gospel? The Gospel can be characterized a number of ways.

I like what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, that of utmost importance in the

Gospel that he delivered to his readers is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, was buried, and was raised on the third day in accordance with the

Scriptures. But we can also say that it's repenting from one's sins and accepting

Christ in his kingdom. I mean, there's a number of different ways in which the Gospel could be. Essentially, the

Gospel is the euangelia, the good news that Christ has defeated death for all those who are united into him through faith.

Amen. Is that Gospel eternal or everlasting? Uh, yes. Everybody in the new heavens, new earth that lives forever, and it is not just a new heavens, it's also a new earth, will live forever because they were covered by the blood of Christ.

I don't think we're ever going to shed those robes. Would you say that the Gospel is entrance into the kingdom of God? No, the

Gospel is the good news that entrance into the kingdom of God is possible. The Gospel isn't equal to entering the kingdom of God.

It's the good news that the kingdom of God can be entered into by washing our robes in the blood of Christ. Okay.

Hopefully, you know the reason I asked those questions is that Revelation chapter 14, verse six, highlights that the

Gospel will be everlasting. And I obviously was looking for you to highlight that the

Gospel is being freed from sin. So the Gospel is everlasting. Yeah.

And I guarantee you that in trillions of years after those of us who are believers are raised bodily from the dead and we're immortal, we'll praise

God that we were covered by the blood of Christ. And that's why we're still alive, trillions of years in the future.

So after that time, when apparently sin and death will be removed, which we're being saved from in part of the

Gospel, the Gospel, the kingdom will cease to be increasing. I do think the kingdom will cease to be increasing in terms of numbers of people.

Although I'm open to the possibility that when Jesus says that in the resurrection, people neither marry nor given in marriage, I'm open to the possibility

I've misunderstood that and that there will be procreation in the new heavens and new earth. But no, at this point, I'm inclined to think that, no, it won't expand in the sense of numbers of people.

But I do think it's possible that it will expand across the cosmos infinitely forever. Because once we are resurrected from the dead, immortal, and we'll never die again, and if technology continues to be developed with people who are doing so without sin, without, you know, with wisdom and so forth,

I think we could explore the distant reaches of the cosmos. And we might find out one day that the Gospel is being, that God is being praised, that Christ is being praised by human beings saved by him on Mars or on Alpha Centauri or whatever.

So I don't know that that answers your question. I'm just saying, I think it can expand forever geographically, even if it doesn't in terms of number of individuals.

You went ahead of me. I was gonna ask you, how else would it increase if it's not increasing by numbers of people? So I appreciate your thoughts there.

So what would you say to me saying that you're redefining the death of 1 Corinthians 15, verse 56, because it says there that the death that we're talking about is the death that comes from the law.

The death that is because of sin, you know, is produced because of the law, and therefore that sin manifests death.

I actually think it's you who's a redefining death there. Number one, if you look at his language of Thanatos Apothenesko, leading up to this text, it's the language of physical death, zao zoe, the death that comes from the law, in my view, is indeed literal physical death.

Because we have violated the law, we are destined to die forever. And it's only through faith in Christ that we can be rescued from that fate.

So in Revelation chapter 22, if all sin is gonna be done away with, and all these details that, you know, everything's gonna be perfect, as per the reading of Revelation 21, why are people after the establishment of the new heavens and new earth still in sin outside the gates?

They're not, you're misreading that text. Would you like me to elaborate or do you wanna press me first? No, go for it. Right, so this is a common misunderstanding.

I'm used to this misunderstanding being exhibited by believers in eternal torment. I'm not used to people who, at least on some level, properly understand the apocalyptic nature of the book of Revelation.

You see, it's not the whole book of Revelation that contains the vision that John received while he was in exile on the island of Patmos.

That vision properly starts at the beginning of chapter four, and it ends a few verses into Revelation 22.

And thus Jesus says in verse seven, behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words and the prophecy of this book.

And then John says, I am the one who heard and saw these things. He is now in the epilogue, the conclusion of the epistle.

So a few verses later, when he talks about outside of the dogs, he's not talking about people at that time who are outside the lake of fire suffering.

He's talking about people now who by virtue of their guilt under the law, because they haven't washed their clothes and their robes in the blood of Christ, are not yet, they haven't yet received the right to enter into that city.

And that's why in verse 14, in the immediately preceding verse, John encourages people, wash your robes so that you can have the right to enter into the gates, into the tree of life.

Nobody wants the tree of life has been made available is gonna have a chance to wash their robes anymore. He's telling people then wash your robes and enter into Christ so that when the new heavens, new earth comes, you can be a part of it.

So you wouldn't agree that with a Revelation 21 then, where it says that they will bring the glory.

This is after the establishment of the new heavens and new earth. They're going to go out of the gate and bring the glory of the nations into it, which again, as you asserted, the gospel was to be covered by the blood of Jesus.

So you wouldn't say that in the new heavens and new earth, there's going to be opportunity to go ahead and tell others to come into the kingdom of God as per the gospel.

No, I don't. I think the picture of Gentiles streaming into the new Jerusalem, it comes from Isaiah 25, in which physical death has swallowed up forever, which is why

John and Paul both quote it and use the language of physical death to quote it. It's a picture of Gentiles being free to enter into the gates and to bring the glory from the nations from which they had been, of which they had been a part.

In other words, the new heavens and new earth is going to be something in which people from every tribe, people, nation and tongue are a part of, having earned their right to come into the gates by believing in Jesus prior to its arrival.

Okay, I'm glad you mentioned Isaiah. In Isaiah 65, which we both know is a prophecy of the new heavens and new earth.

Why does it say those who die in the new heavens and new earth if there is no death? Right.

So actually, let me just first observe, I was going to include this in my opening presentation, but I didn't have time for it. The Septuagint translation of Isaiah 65, 20 doesn't read quite the same as the

Masoretic. It says, for the youth shall be 100 years old. It doesn't say the youth shall die 100 years old.

And the Targum says, a youth who sins shall be dying 100 years old and the sinner 100 years old shall be expelled.

But of course, in the new heavens, new earth, they didn't think there would be sinners. And in fact, in the

Talmud, they said that very same kind of thing. They answered this text in a way very much like mine.

So what I explain these texts in the same way as Old Testament scholars like John Oswald and John Goldengay do, which is that it's saying if somebody were a sinner in that day and age, they would die and they sinned and died at 100 years old, they would be called a youth.

But it doesn't mean that they will in fact die there. I mean, talk about pressing poetic and typological literature too far.

I think that's what you're doing with this language in Isaiah 65. Okay. Switching the focus a little bit here.

Does your physical body harbor unrepentant sin? Yes. Yeah. Can you explain that a bit?

Yeah, sure. I continue to, every day I sin in ways that I am both aware of and am not. The ways of which

I am aware, I ask for God's forgiveness. And there are sure many ways in which I sin and I don't even realize it.

You're saying your physical body is causing you to do this? No, I'm not saying, you didn't ask if my physical body was causing me to sin.

You said, I mean, would you like to rephrase a question? So I understand maybe, maybe I misunderstood your question. That's okay.

So you're saying that the fact that you sin keeps sin in your physical body. No, I'm saying my body is still, because it was born in a state of sin, it is mortal and God has not yet immortalized

God's people, which he will do in the resurrection of the dead. So my body continues. So not only do I continue to struggle with sin, which the

New Testament makes explicit believers will continue to do until they're made perfect. But also my body is still mortal and fallen because of the state of sin into which

I was born. Okay, so again,

I just want to be clear that you are asserting that we died physically because of sin and that that is still yet to be overcome.

That's, it's again, the already not yet. Jesus has defeated death in the sense that we are free from it in the sense that we will ultimately live forever.

But the not yet is the fruition of that when Christ returns and raises the dead unto everlasting life.

In Romans chapter seven, verse nine, it says sin came in and I died. What death is he talking about there?

There are a couple of possibilities all throughout. I mean, every single use of death, for example, in the book of Genesis refers to bodily death with the exception, arguably, of Genesis two and three.

And I don't think that those are exceptions. The language of death all throughout scripture, well over 99 .999 % of the time refers to ordinary physical death.

So when somebody uses the language of death to refer to people living in the here and now, we don't immediately assume that they're talking about some other kind of death.

If I said to an estranged relative, you're dead to me. Nobody asks, well, in what sense do you think he's dead?

What kind of death do you mean there? No, we would understand we're using death as a metaphor. He's as if dead to me.

Well, in the same way, we are as if dead to sin in the sense that we've been freed from it and we are as if alive in the sense that we will one day live forever.

OK, so you're saying that the last enemy to be destroyed is physical death, correct?

That's what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15. That's right. So if that's the case, why would Job long for it in Job 3 .21?

Because he was in the midst of terrible suffering and knew that at some point after his death from his flesh, he would see

God. So death would rescue him from his terrible pain. And one day he would then rise from the dead physically and see

God from his flesh. That's what Job says. If physical death is the enemy, then why would

Psalm 116 verse 15 tell us that beautiful in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints?

Because it's not the end. OK. And because in many cases, it brings an end to the kind of suffering that Job experienced and that he would have rescued him if God hadn't intervened first before he died.

So beautiful in the sight of the Lord is the physical enemy or the last enemy. Again, that's what you're saying, right?

I mean, even Satan was an angel of light. Sorry? Even Satan was an angel of light.

Using the language of beauty doesn't necessarily mean that you're saying it's not an enemy. OK. Philippians chapter 1 verse 23, the apostle

Paul says that he longs to depart and be with the Lord. How can he say that if that's the physical enemy? Because the next thing he would know, he would be in bliss, either in a conscious disembodied state or in the resurrection from the dead.

You got to keep in mind, we're talking about somebody who was suffering very similarly to the way Job was. And yeah, it would be he would much rather be with Christ in bliss than continue to suffer at the hands of his persecutors in the way that he was.

I really don't see what your point is. All right. So Paul is with Christ in bliss prior to judgment and resurrection.

If people are conscious in a disembodied state, but bliss, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the final and perfect ideal.

Again, the story of Lazarus and the rich man has Lazarus being comforted or consoled in the bosom of Abraham.

It's a subhuman half existence. It's better than the kind of suffering that people undergo here while experiencing persecution.

But it's not the final state. And he's not anyway, what he's longing for here is not,

I think, even if there is a conscious disembodied state, his conscious disembodied bliss with Christ. I think he's referring to when he will be with Christ in the eschaton in the final state when he's resurrected.

And that's why in like 2 Corinthians 5, for example, he talks about, I long not to be naked, but to put on, to be further clothed upon, not not unclothed by his physical flesh, but further clothed upon by immortality.

And that's what he means by when he says, I long to be away from this body and at home with the Lord. Who is the first to die in the

Bible, physically die? I think it would be Abel. Thank you.

Why then do we call it the death of Adam? Because Adam, well, we don't call it the death of Adam.

What we do is we say that through Adam, death came into the world, meaning that the reason why anybody dies is because Adam sinned.

And we are, he is our federal head, if not also our ultimate, everybody's ultimate ancestor. Right, as the

Apostle Paul says, for an Adam all sinned, right? So that's right. He said in Adam all sinned.

And he said that that's proof that what he said is that because people died between Adam and Moses, which the only way he knows that is because those people aren't still living anywhere.

Because people died from Adam to Moses when there was no law, that's proof that they nevertheless were counted as sinners in Adam.

So Adam's sin as our federal head is what secures our eventual physical demise.

All of his descendants, everybody found everybody who is an Adam. So would you say that that's a correlation to how your current body is dead because of sin?

Yeah, I was born mortal because I was born in a state of sin because Adam, I sinned in Adam.

He was my federal head. So in Romans 8, 8, 10, that death, your body is dead because of sin.

That's not talking about physical death. No, I think it is. Because it's as good as dead.

Again, when you have a language in which the language of life and death is 99 .99999 % of the time used of ordinary life and death, then on these one -offs, you immediately know that they're using it as metaphor or as prolepsis.

For listeners that don't know, prolepsis is the practice of speaking of something in the future as if it's already in the present because it's so certain.

It's like when a death row criminal is being walked down the green mile to the electric chair and fellow prisoners say, dead man walking.

They don't mean he's dead in any sense. They mean he's as good as dead. And so in the same way, my body is as good as dead because I'm going to die in the event that Christ doesn't return before I do.

Okay. So in what way could the... Oh, actually, I guess you answered that with the 2 Corinthians 4 .16 where the apostle

Paul says that the body is outwardly wasting away and inwardly being renewed. I guess you would assert that as the physical death being somehow your reality now before you physically died.

I would have to exegete 2 Corinthians 4 .16 in a little bit more depth. But my initial inclination is to say that yes, outwardly we are wasting away.

We are aging. We're getting sick. We're dying. But our inner self is being renewed day by day, meaning that our character is being improved.

We're exhibiting more and more the fruit of the spirit. Okay. Last couple of questions.

I imagine my time is almost up. Do you believe that Christians are biblically illiterate? I think most lay

Christians are to a large degree biblically illiterate. I had to qualify what I said there because you used universal language and binary language as if it's illiterate or not.

I don't think Christians are full stop illiterate. They are, many of them, largely illiterate.

Yes. Do you believe that the average Christian can explain their thoughts on the resurrection of the dead? No. As I said in my opening statement and in my...

Actually, I said it in my rebuttal. Most lay Christians... In fact, this is the whole reason I started Christian podcasting because most

Christians I talk to, except for the sort of cerebral Christians that apologists we talk with online and stuff like that, the average

Christian in my church doesn't know a lick about his or her future resurrection from the dead. He or she looks forward to going to be in heaven as soon as he or she dies and remaining there forever.

So you don't see an issue with hereticizing a full preterist that has an explanation for what they believe in contrast to somebody that has no idea or explanation to what they believe.

You don't see the problem with hereticizing a full preterist, but then accepting them and or alienating them? No, because number one, as we've already established and as even you admitted,

Paul says in 2 Timothy 2, something which if your belief that the resurrection has already taken place would mean that your belief is gangrenous and ruining people's faiths and the early church believed that this was an essential of the faith.

So no, I don't have any discomfort labeling it heresy. Do you believe that there's areas of Christian theology?

All right, that's time. I do apologize for breaking in there. That is time. Now we're going to be moving into the closing statements.

And so that will be Chris with eight minutes for his closing statement. Let me just minimize everyone here and reset the clock.

And you can go now. All right. Closing statements are one of my worst parts of a debate just because I can't prepare them in advance, not knowing exactly how my opponent is going to argue beforehand.

And I actually think that what will be the best use of my eight minutes here and seven minutes and 45 seconds now is to summarize each of the elements of my case and how you heard them addressed during cross -examination and in rebuttal.

So I began by pointing to a number of texts, not just poetic texts, like parts of Job or Psalms or Proverbs or anything like that, but historical narrative or at least ostensibly historical narrative like Genesis 6 and 7 and the flood narrative in which

Nefesh Chayah, which include not just human beings, but also birds and earth creatures and swimming creatures are all called

Nefesh Chayah, living creatures because they breathe the life -giving breath of God, which is why the flood narrative says that everything with breathing the breath of life died in that flood.

And then we have pictures of resurrected bodies coming back to life in which they come back to life when

God gives that breath back. Michael's response to this line of reasoning was simply to deny,

I mean, he wanted to, I think he denied that human beings that are disembodied are Nefesh Chayah.

Maybe he didn't, but if he didn't, I mean, he gave literally no reason for taking these texts in some way other than what they seem to be, which is that God created human beings to be living and embodied and breathing the life -giving breath of God, just like he did all the other creatures.

Michael Miano's position requires you to ignore all of it. And what I presented was just a sample of such language.

So I maintain, I still maintain that this plank of my argument has gone unscathed, that to be a living human being, according to scripture, is to be physically embodied and breathing the life -giving breath of God.

With that, I turned to the New Testament language of salvation. And it seems as if every single time the

New Testament uses language of physical life and death, even in a context in which it's just spoken of, and it's just about to speak of physical life and death, he nevertheless wants you to think that there are these sudden leaps in which he, all of a sudden, the author will go back and forth between physical life and death to some other kind of life and death, and then back to physical life and death.

And so, for example, even though Jesus uses a Greek word in the middle voice, it always means to physically die when referring to human beings.

Nevertheless, it must mean something different here. Even though he had just, Jesus had just compared himself to that statue that Moses held up in the wilderness and which people bitten by otherwise venomous, fatally venomous snakes could look at that staff and they would literally have their lives saved.

Ignore all that, Michael says. Ignore the use of the Apollo in the middle voice. Just focus on, well, something.

I pointed to the language of the tree of life in the opening chapters of Genesis, and I don't think

I heard Michael deny that at least in the narrative, whatever it symbolizes, the tree of life would have maintained

Adam and Eve's continued physical life. So I'm not sure why we should think that that's different in the apocalyptic symbolism at the end of the

Book of Revelation. John's readers would have understood what that tree of life guaranteed for Adam and Eve had they continued to have access to it.

Michael Miano, he tried to explain, tried to explain a way, Isaiah 25, where Yahweh will swallow up the veil that is spread over all nations by saying that's not the physical death that all

Gentiles, which is what the Hebrew says, suffer from.

It's actually the fellowship death that only Israel suffered from. But because we somehow are blessed in Israel, therefore

Israel's death is somehow the veil that is spread over all nations. I mean, this is getting really bizarre, and it only gets more bizarre when you consider that the

Hebrew word mavet and its cognates, which is death, is used all throughout the

Book of Isaiah to refer to physical death. Again, Michael Miano wants you to ignore how the language is used in its context and instead impose these conclusions you come to from other questionable texts.

When Paul quotes Isaiah 25 in 1 Corinthians 15 and earlier says the last enemy to be destroyed is death, it doesn't matter to Michael Miano that he's been using thanatos and its cognates to refer to Christ's physical death.

And it doesn't matter that Paul is saying here that death is going to be destroyed.

You should instead impose these spirulous, questionable extrapolations from a few time texts.

You should impose all of that on what Paul does and ignore the way he uses the language elsewhere in the very epistle that we're looking at.

He did the same thing with Revelation. So when John says that God will wipe away every tear from their eyes and death shall be no more, again, he's been using thanatos and apothenesko all throughout

Revelation to refer to ordinary physical death. But ignore that, superimpose your questionable extrapolations from time texts onto that and make it mean something different from how

John has been using the language everywhere else in the Book of Revelation. That's just not acceptable. He did the same thing with Romans 6 .23.

The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life. Two verses later, he uses those same words.

It's thanatos and apothenesko. That's the noun and verb form of death. And zoe and zao, again, the verb and the noun form.

Two verses after Romans 6 .23, he uses the exact same words to refer to ordinary life and death. But ignore that and ignore the fact that he's been using thanatos to refer to the physical death of Christ all throughout

Romans. Ignore all that. Instead, subject the text to your questionable extrapolations from a few time texts.

That's the hermeneutic that this, that Michael Miano is asking you to adopt. So let's turn to the intertestamental case, because here

I argued that in the first century Jewish mind, resurrection just is the rising again of the physical body.

And I'll just point out that at no point whatsoever throughout this entire debate, have you heard any examples of intertestamental

Jewish texts which use the language of resurrection, egedo, anistemi, anastasis, to refer to something other than bodily resurrection.

Not one. Meanwhile, we've got the Tanakh in first Kings. Tanakh, by the way, is the

Torah, the Ketuvim and the Nevi 'im, the law of the prophets and the writings. The Tanakh, the

Old Testament. We have Hebrews 11 referring to the coming back to life of children, literally physically coming back to life in first Kings and second

Kings. He calls that anastasis in the very same verse that he referred to anastasis that people submitted to death by torture in order to accomplish.

And then he amazingly, this really baffled me. I didn't expect this to happen. He tried to argue that when the

Jewish brothers in second Maccabees seven say they look forward to getting their tongue and their hands back and their life and their breath, all of this in anastasis resurrection.

Somehow he wants you to think, oh, well, what is it? A spiritual tongue and hands? I guess

I don't understand that. But it wasn't just second Maccabees. It was first Enoch. The earth will give back what was entrusted to it.

And Sheol will give back what it has received. It was the apocalypse of Moses. All flesh from Adam will be raised up all throughout the

Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. The righteous are going to break through the earth and come up at Jerusalem, even in clothes in very same texts using the seed analogy that Paul uses in First Corinthians 15 as an analogy for resurrection.

So we've got this mass, mass of intertestamental Jewish literature in which the language of resurrection refers to bodily resurrection.

And you haven't heard one intertestamental Jewish text in which a ghetto anastasis and anistemi refer to a resurrection of some other sort whose view is, in fact,

Jewish. That would be the question I'd like to leave viewers with. Thank you. All right, that's time. Now it's time for Michael Miano's eight -minute closing statement.

All right, let me just reset the clock and you can begin now. Thanks. I hope

I was in the very least. I hope both of us, me and Chris, in the very least were able to encourage all of us to seek, search, study, and prove the details of resurrection this evening.

Contrary to popular opinion, I believe it was made clear from Chris's assertion of heresy and my assertion of biblical illiterate

Christianity that detailed study of these things are of utmost importance. We talked quite a bit about the context of various passages.

And as I had pointed out that there's various arguments taking place in the different letters. As with any reading of a letter, it's important to take in the context of the different discussions taking place.

Chris himself had said in regards to Revelation that when we get to certain portions of Revelation, we need to further consider different details and what the text might be leading to.

I do hope that I demonstrated that this imposed future reconstitution of physical bodies, the very issue of the death that was being overcome, that these issues are beset with problems.

Chris has himself physically dead already because of sin, yet he's hoping that he will gain a resurrection after that death.

For one, in responding to the notion that we will get a resurrection body like Jesus Christ, consider the fact that his resurrection was with a body that carried bodily wounds, still seen after his resurrection.

We didn't get into much of the detail. However, I would assert that the nightmare of what Chris is envisioning in his mind and imposing upon the scriptures as a future resurrection and judgment simply confuses me and sounds rather frightening than glorious.

The common assertion is that we will get a body like Jesus based off of an odd rendering of 1 John 3, 2, wherein we read, beloved, now we are the sons of God and it does not yet appear what we shall be.

But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is.

That sure sounds a lot different than Chris's assertion and demand regarding the anthropology of man and the resurrection.

The first century Christians had seen Christ after his resurrection, even watched as his body ascended into the clouds in Acts 1, 9 -11, so they knew what he was like after physical resurrection.

What they didn't know - I just want to interrupt you. I do apologize. The closing statement should be a kind of a summary of your main points.

Just be sure not to introduce any new features that you did not already bring up in the discussion, okay?

Sure. All right. Thank you, man. Let me start the clock again, okay? Sorry for the interruption. Okay, well,

Chris had went into a lot of anthropological details that we did not yet deal with in the debate. So rather than an anthropological concern,

I made the assertion that what's being dealt with in scripture is a fellowship death. It was a relationship concern.

The implication of Chris's yet future coming of glory is that he cannot say that he knows what this will be.

Unfortunately, Chris's position reveals a misunderstanding what he referred to continually as the already -but -not -yet period of time.

Chris would assert that we have salvation, but we are waiting for eternal realities of resurrection, judgment, and the new heavens and the new earth.

The full preterist puts these fulfillment of these spiritual realities in the past and obtainable for those that are in Christ now.

Prior to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, as I brought up Daniel chapter 12, also revealed in Isaiah chapter 27, prior to that time, the living saints could put their faith in Jesus Christ and go from death to life, experiencing everything pertaining to life and godliness, as the apostle

Peter makes known in his writing. We can do that now. However, the concern was about the dead ones.

What about the dead ones? Hebrews chapter 11, verses 39 through 40, highlights how the old covenant saints did not receive what was promised to them because in correspondence to the new covenant, their reward would come.

The question for first century Christians, especially for the Jews who had background in the old covenant, was how would the dead ones come to experience the realities of the new covenant, primarily the presence of God.

That was the resurrection of the dead that was about to happen when the power of the holy people was finally destroyed.

The problem is that the futurist has sought to stretch the progressive fulfillment of these prophecies to be more than 2000 years, whereas scripture posits fulfillment within the generation of some of those who are standing there within that generation.

Matthew chapter 16, verses 27 through 28, as well as Matthew chapter 24, verse 34.

If I could encourage further study on this topic, it would be the necessary details. Identify the death that plagued the people of God all throughout the scriptures, giving them an identity of death in correspondence to the hope of life that was promised and how it would be obtained.

Identify that which was corrupt, mortal, fleshly, and natural, and that which would become incorruptible, immortal, and spiritual.

Identify the contrast between that which was being put off and that which was being put on in the

New Testament. Identify the distinction of the dead ones waiting for resurrection from the dead, and those who fell asleep in Christ that would be asleep and would be gathered at his coming and the living who are going to be changed.

The full preterist community does not call those of us who disagree heretics, as unfortunately is often done to us.

These things are important, no doubt about it, but it is not a sin to be deceived. However, it is a sin to remain ignorant of the knowledge of God, especially after being given the opportunity and charge to further study.

It is a sin to have a zeal for God that is not based upon knowledge. Lastly, I mentioned biblical illiteracy a lot this evening.

I strongly believe biblical illiteracy is contingent upon many false assertions, false hopes, and false ideas that have been held up by Christians, be they areas of biblical anthropology, the nature of man, protology, understanding of the beginning, or eschatology, understanding of last things.

Proverbs 13, 12 tells us, hope deferred makes the heart sick. A longing fulfilled is a tree of life.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason why many Christians are sick, as I asserted in my opening statement, in every sense of the word, is because of the failure to realize we now have access to the tree of life.

It is not a far off hope yet deferred future reality. We have been given everything pertaining to life and godliness in biological life as well as biological death.

Thank you all for giving me this opportunity this evening to negate such views I believe have hindered the body of Christ.

All right, thank you very much, Michael. Let me get everyone on the screen here.

I do apologize. Oops, let me adjust that. All right, all right, very good.

So that concludes the kind of the main part of the debate, the cross -examination, the closing statements.

You guys did an excellent job keeping with time. And now we're going to be moving on to Q &A.

And so I'm looking on my sidebar here and I don't see some questions that people had posted.

I'm going to try my best to get to as many as possible. I do want to give a quick shout out to those who were kind enough to give super chats.

Shoemaker, I think Shoemaker88. I apologize if I'm mispronouncing that. He writes,

Jesus, the word of God is the son of God, the Lord and Christ who came in the flesh. Thank you for your $5 super chat.

Trinity Radio gave $20. He says, glad to be able to support this ministry through super chats now.

And Jonathan Glisson, I hope I'm pronouncing that correct, has a question for Michael.

And so I'm going to put that question up before it disappears. Let me see if I'm doing this right.

And so we'll begin the Q &A right now and I'm going to reset the time and we'll shoot for 20 minutes or until all the questions are through.

And I think we'll be able to get through most of them, hopefully. All right, so let's begin here.

So Jonathan has a question for Michael. How do you understand Paul's language in Romans 8 verses 18 through 25 regarding the liberation of creation and the redemption of the body?

I would understand Romans 8 to be a corporate text promising the resurrection from the dead of the dead ones and also the redemption of that body that needed to be changed during the time of transition, that old covenant identity.

Again, understanding the word soma can also mean identity and not necessarily a physical body. Okay. And I just wanna make mention real quick before Chris gives his two cents there.

I didn't mention. So you guys have at least two minutes to answer the question and then the opposing side will have one minute to respond.

So Chris, go for it there. Well, because he only took maybe like 30 seconds, I just wanna make sure Mike doesn't wanna say any more.

Again, I'll just highlight the first two verses of the chapter are talking about, there's no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus.

The law, the spirit of life in Christ has set you free from the law of sin and death. And again, it's talking about that old covenant law that was being fulfilled during that time, the

Jots and Tiddles that I mentioned from Matthew five. Okay, Chris, would you like to follow up on that?

Sure. What I will point out is that only answers half of Jonathan's question, the redemption of the body.

It doesn't answer Paul's language about the liberation from creation in which he alludes to Kohelet, the

Jewish name of the book of Ecclesiastes, the language of futility of life being inexplicable because people die and die and generations come and go and nothing ever seems to change.

The whole creation, Paul says here, is going to be set free from this kind of futility, this bondage to corruption, the whole creation.

And if I'm not mistaken, I think that many hyperpreterists will say, oh, but the creation here refers to that redemptive body as well.

It's a Jewish idiom referring to the people whose fellowship death is redeemed.

And so I suspect that what Michael probably does to answer Jonathan's question is conflate the redemption of the body and the freedom from futility to which creation was subjected.

He just treats them as the same thing when I think is otherwise is the case. All right. Thank you. Here's another question.

This one's for Michael. I do apologize. I am not even going to try to pronounce that name, but thank you for your question.

It writes there, N .T. Wright in his book argues that resurrection, anastasis, and its cognate means live after,

I think he's going to say life after life, life after life after death.

I think that's how he would say it. In fact, on page 83, the resurrection of the son of God, he argues that there was not in use of this word elsewhere in the ancient world as a description of non bodily life after death.

Do you have evidence to the contrary? That's for Michael. No, I believe we talked a little bit about that word anastasis.

And I do believe that I mentioned in Acts chapter two, I think we were there, where I had made a case that I don't believe anastasis is talking about Christ dying that corruptible death, which

I believe the text bears out. So no, I don't know of any other specific verses. I'm off the top of my head, but I believe that when we see that Christ did not suffer, did not perish in,

I want to make sure it was Acts two or three, where we were talking about David, Acts three.

And I believe that that would be a text that would demonstrate that anastasis does not necessarily mean biological death or non bodily life after death.

All right, Chris, you have any thoughts on that? Yeah, I'll just quote N .T. Wright in that section of the resurrection of the son of God.

It's on page 204. If people are interested in picking up a copy, he says, some

Jews of Paul's day speak of eternal disembodied bliss, but this is not described as resurrection.

When resurrection is spoken of, it is the second stage in postmortem life, not the instant destiny upon death.

And he goes on. So the questioner here is absolutely right. And this is a point that I tried to hammer home repeatedly throughout this debate.

Even in this very answer to the question, Michael could not provide you with intertestamental contemporary

Jewish texts in which agedo, anastasis, anistemi, this language of resurrection is used to describe something other than bodies, coming up out of the ground.

I'm still waiting to find that evidence. In fact, somebody in the chat suggested the possible that was in Jewish literature that's been lost or destroyed.

Well, isn't that convenient? I still remain anxious to see where intertestamental

Jews use the language of resurrection in the way that Michael suggested. OK, I'm looking through my chat and for some reason,

I do have a question here, but some of the questions are no longer available to me. So I do apologize.

I don't know. I can't go back to the beginning. I'm going to try. So I'm going to click on a question. This one's for Chris.

And in the meantime, I'm going to try to scroll back to the top and see what's going on. OK, you might pick up a live chat on the

YouTube stream. I'm sorry. You might go to the YouTube video on YouTube and scroll up through the live chat.

Maybe you'll find it there. All right. So let me click this question here and then I'll go check that out. OK, here's a question for Chris.

If physical death is part of the penalty for sin, why do we have to die physically if Christ paid the penalty for our sin on the cross?

Answer that question slowly so that I can go and check this out. I'll do my best.

It's not dying that is the penalty for sin. It's being dead. And that's why

Christ paying that penalty on our behalf guarantees that we will one day be rescued from Hades.

That's what Jesus means when he says the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church. The gates of Hades won't be able to keep the church from triumphantly bursting forth in resurrection precisely because Christ has rescued us from the fate of being dead.

But we do still die. And that's just because this final consummation has not yet happened in which mortality is going to be swallowed up in immortality.

By way of analogy, if you imagine two people going to jail while awaiting trial, and let's say they're in jail for the same crime awaiting trial and they're there for, let's say, six months or something like that.

They come out for trial. One of them is declared guilty and the other is found innocent. And this is a crime that let's say is deserving of, say, two years in prison.

The one who is declared guilty goes back to prison for another year and a half because the time they've already spent in prison accounts toward that penalty.

But the person who's declared innocent is counted as having never been punished at all. So you see the fate of being in prison for two different people, only one of them is punitive because it's what the judge ultimately says is the penalty required for being found guilty of that sin.

And similarly, just because we die does not mean that we haven't been set free from sin.

It's as if it's as it were, we are awaiting trial. And when we are raised from the dead, as Revelation 20 talks about, to face that trial, we will be declared innocent and in our time being dead won't be counted a penalty and we will be made immortal.

All right, Michael, would you want to share your thoughts on that? Yeah, as I've mentioned, I do believe that Chris has misappropriated the already but not yet period and therefore demands that there's a physical death at this not yet period that we need to have.

I would just assert the simple text where Jesus says, Matthew 5, John 5, John 11, 1

John 3, 4, where Jesus says that if you believe in him, you've passed from death into life. Okay, thank you.

Here's a question for Mr. Date. Oh, how polite. Mr. Miano said that Christians are looking forward to going from earthly existence to heavenly existence forever.

How would you describe the final hope of Christians? I would describe it the way the Bible does, which is as a new heavens and a new earth coming down from heaven and restoring the earth to its original glory and maybe even, you know, better.

This phrase, hyper -preterists, for viewers that aren't familiar with this, they try to, they pretend as if practically every use of the phrase heaven and earth refers to Israel, just because in a couple of places, that's what it does refer to.

It's an idiom. But when you press this into refer to that being what it's referring to everywhere in scripture, you end up with all sorts of problems, including the problem of it makes you then treat new heavens and new earth,

I guess, as a replacement of that original body. I mean, I don't know. I'll let Michael try to explain it in the minute that he has after me.

Meanwhile, I'll just go with what the Bible says and that the new heavens and new earth are going to come down from heaven. The Book of Revelation says when the dead in Christ are raised glorious and immortal bodily from the dead.

That's why it's not just a new heavens, but also a new earth. I don't know how to say it better than that.

So in short, yes, it is true that many biblically illiterate Christians, as I explained in my opening statement, look forward to going from earthly existence to heavenly existence forever.

You hear that kind of language at Christian funerals, and it's very sad that the church has so embraced a

Gnostic like dualism, kind of like what Michael Miano believes. I would rather embrace the biblical message that we await, not just a heavenly existence, but a once again earthly existence, but in a new earth that has been glorified as Romans 8 says.

Paul says it's going to be freed from the futility and bondage of corruption that it suffers from when the sons of God are made immortal in resurrection.

Michael, would you like to respond? Sure. Obviously, I would agree with my statement that Christians today can go from earthly existence to heavenly existence, and I do believe a lot of what

Chris said there in regards to heaven and earth is unfortunately very confused. I think rightly identifying the first heaven and earth of Genesis 1 through 3, which

I imagine many people have misunderstood, would help clarify what the new heaven and new earth is in Revelation chapters 21 through 22.

Okay. Here's another question by Michael James to Chris. John 14, 19, speaking of the coming of the spirit of Jesus says, before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.

There are several verses that refer to speaking, walking, indwelling believers in a spiritual sense.

Revelation 2, 1, Acts 16, 7, Galatians 4, 6. So why is the flesh needed? I'm not quite sure

I understand the question. I mean, for example, this last verse that this person cited,

Galatians 4, 6, says, because you were sons, God has sent the spirit of his son into our hearts, crying,

Abba, Father. I'm really not sure what that has to do with why flesh miter might not be needed.

In fact, quite the contrary. This is exactly what it means to be a spiritual person, according to the way

Paul uses natural and spiritual in 1 Corinthians 2 and 3. It's to have the indwelling spirit as a promise of one day rising with a spiritual body, namely the same physical body that was sown.

This is something that Michael can't explain. The same physical body that is sown is the body that is raised, but it was sown natural and is raised spiritual.

It's no longer a body riddled by the obsession with acquiring the material possessions and needs that our existing bodies are so dependent upon now.

It will be a body that is driven and motivated and fueled by the Holy Spirit itself.

In the same way that the difference between a natural person and a spiritual person now is that a natural person doesn't care about, isn't concerned about, can't even understand, 1

Corinthians 2 says, the things of the spirit. But the spiritual person can't. So that's why we're walking around in a spiritual sense or whatever, because we have the

Holy Spirit inside of us as a guarantee, the New Testament says. In fact, here, I'll turn the tables a little bit and end with this.

The New Testament says the Holy Spirit is a seal or a guarantee of, I'm assuming Michael would agree, the resurrection.

If he thinks the resurrection was in the past, I'm guessing he doesn't think that the Holy Spirit is inside of him as a seal or as a guarantee.

I'd be interested in hearing what Michael has to say about that. But coming back to what I'm saying it's just because when the New Testament talks about people, believers being spiritual, it's not talking about some not needing flesh or anything.

It's talking about the Holy Spirit's indwelling us and changing our character and being a guarantee of our future resurrection.

You have a response there, Michael? Can you just go back to the beginning part of that question? Sure. Let's see here.

It's over here to Chris. John 14, 19, speaking of the coming of the spirit, Jesus says, before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.

There are several verses that refer to speaking, walking, indwelling believers in a spiritual sense.

Revelation 2, 1, Acts 16, 7, Galatians 4, 6. So why is the flesh needed? Yeah, I think that person's getting at the point that, you know, believers can be spiritual as Chris rightly pointed out.

We can be spiritual, but however, there's unfortunately this need for the flesh to be resurrected or a misappropriating of the term flesh that is being forced here that is unfortunately being forced upon the hope of a believer, whereas the believer can have that spirit.

And I do believe the indwelling of the spirit, the work until the day of redemption is a future conversation and maybe debate that can be had between Chris and I.

Okay. All right. Here's another question here. Someone tried to recapture an old question.

Again, I don't know. I checked the live stream and it's not showing me. I don't know if you guys see anything there, but I can't find any questions past a certain point.

So I do apologize. But here's a question for Chris. Is this type, anti -type reading of the

Old Testament not upheld by New Testament writers, i .e. the temple, the sacrifices, the nation of Israel, et cetera?

Sure. I'll answer that question. But before I do, I just want to touch on that last question that was asked of me. Jesus did say, the world will no longer see me, but you will see me.

And then he goes on in John 16, 22 to say, you have sorrow now, but I will see you again and your hearts will rejoice and no one will take your joy from you.

People, Jesus' disciples did see him after he raised from the dead and they saw him bodily. So I'm really not sure what the point of that is.

Coming to this question, yes, it's absolutely true that there is a relationship between type and anti -type in scripture.

And in the book of Hebrews, the author does that with the temple and with the sacrifices. And arguably, there are some places where Israel itself is a type of the anti -type, which is the church.

But in all of these cases, you have text making that very point, using languages like chupadigma, which means a prototype or pattern or whatever to refer to the temple, which is a prototype of Christ and the sacrifices and so forth.

What you don't have is anywhere where physical life and death are somehow a type of everlasting non -physical life.

You don't find that anywhere. Quite the contrary. You have, like I said, Paul going from Romans 6 .23 to Romans 7 .1,

one, two verses apart, using the exact same language of life and death that he just used to talk about the wages of sin and the free gift of life to refer to the ordinary physical life and death that frees a wife to remarry after her husband dies.

It's why Jesus, right after comparing himself to the bronze serpent statue that Moses had created, right after comparing himself to that, he says, so I, those who believe in me will not perish, but have eternal life.

It's why John says, death shall be no more using the language of death all throughout the book of Revelation to refer to physical death.

This is what these authors do. They use these words in their context to refer to physical life and death.

And then Michael wants you to say, we have it in this one little blip in the middle of that context, he means something different and I'm not willing to do that at this point.

Michael, any thoughts? No. No, I don't have any thoughts to follow.

Okay. Here's a question for Chris. The Attic word Ionian is used within time, not outside of time, even in Greek literature, as well as in Matthew 25, 46, that is a time statement of transitioning from old age to new age.

So why do you translate it as everlasting outside of time? Right. So the questioner here is presenting this as if it's a matter of, that's a settled matter of fact that Greek scholars recognize that Ionian doesn't mean eternal.

Ionian, by the way, is just a particular inflection of Ionios. The word in its lexical form is

Ionios. And the reality is that the debate rages to this day and there are still many experts in the original

Greek who argue that it does mean everlasting. So that's number one, why I don't, why I continue to translate it everlasting.

Number two, it's because the people that know the languages best of all and who are hired to participate in the translation committees behind the

ESV, the NASB, and many others also are convicted that these words properly are translated everlasting in their contexts.

So if this person thinks that he knows better than the scholars that are paid to translate the

New Testament and the many scholars who continue to debate over the meaning of Ionios, he's certainly welcome to think he is, but I wouldn't be so prideful.

I want to stay humble and recognize that there are people who know much more about the languages than I do. That's why I continue to use the word to mean everlasting.

Okay. Michael, you want to respond there? Hopefully our humility is not based upon the fact that we'll listen to the presuppositions and the thoughts of other people.

You know, again, I do believe the Greek is important. And however, I'll make the assertion that I believe the

English Bible is easy to be understood and all doctrines that are necessary can be understood by the reading of the English translation of the

Bible and can be readily borne out of the text. So I appreciated that thought.

And again, still leaning in on Greek studies, but I don't believe that humility is needed in regards to listening to the presuppositions of others.

I believe humility is needed in our own studies as we go through these different details. All right. I'm not sure this is a serious question, but it's a question.

So I'm going to... Here's a question. How does billions of believers fit into a 5 .6

foot literal body of Christ? I'm not sure if that's relevant at all. I doubt either of us are going to think that it's very relevant.

Maybe we could just say each of us what we think it means that... I don't know. I have no idea what to even do with this question.

Do you, Michael? No, I get the silliness of the question. I do think the assertion is that why is the physical body of Christ all that important when it seems that the totality of Scripture is pointing out being in the body of Christ and meaning the believers being consumed, being a part of that body, that spiritual body of Christ.

Right. And I'll just say that when they talk about the body of Christ, they're talking about his resurrection body, his physical body, the one that came out of the tomb.

But we can leave that there. All right. That was the last question, guys. I do apologize if I missed your question.

For some reason, I just can't go past a certain point. It doesn't get me all the way back to the beginning.

So I do apologize. Thank you so much for the Super Chats. Those who gave, it's greatly appreciated. And if you have not already, please subscribe to the

Revealed Apologetics YouTube channel. And we are also on iTunes. So we take the audio of this debate will be transferred over to the podcast.

And we take all of the audio from our shows and put them over to the podcast. You could subscribe on iTunes.

Once again, just a quick reminder, tomorrow at 4 .30 p .m. Eastern, I'll be having Dr. Hugh Ross back on to discuss old earth creationism.

And I've actually, those who are interested in the presuppositional emphasis on this channel, I did make a video.

It's probably around 20 something minutes long addressing the philosophical issue of the one and the many.

And I know a lot of people are interested in that. So it's definitely not a introductory little lesson, but I'll be putting that out there soon.

And you guys could avail yourselves of that. I'm sure you'll find it useful. At any rate, thank you so much,

Michael, for coming on and Chris for coming on. You guys did an excellent job keeping with the time. And I very much appreciate you guys coming on.

Are you at all interested in taking the last couple of questions that just came in? If not, I'll understand. Oh, wait, no, no, no.

I don't mind taking the questions. I didn't see them come in. That's fine. Let's let's take them. Let's rewind.

We'll bet back. That's fine. No, wonderful. I'm glad they're coming in. I didn't see that there. OK, so we're going to start here with.

Let's see here. Here's a question here. What's the difference between eternal, everlasting and forever and ever?

Why don't we let Michael answer that and then Chris can follow up there. I do believe that they're different words in the

Greek. You know, again, I think that that would be a further study that I'd want to lean in on.

OK. My answer is that in the biblical languages, there isn't a difference between those things and they're not

English words. Anyway, everlasting as an English word means infinite, you know, into the future, whereas eternal means infinite into the future and the past.

But I don't know that the I don't know that there's that distinction in the biblical Greek. OK, very good question for Michael.

Jesus says that the meek will inherit the earth in Matthew 5 5. What purpose does this serve? If believers will ultimately spend eternity in a disembodied state in heaven?

I think what that's doing is it's saying that the hope of the believer is not for us now, that we're not, you know, the meek will inherit the earth is a is a reality for those that are in Christ.

We inherit the earth as we exemplify realities in Christ. We exemplify meekness.

We grow in meekness. We grow in gentleness as second Peter chapter one highlights. OK, Chris.

I almost just want to let it let the answer be what it was, but I'll just add that the text doesn't just say that they will get the hope that they that they hope for or something like that.

It says they shall inherit the earth. But as the questioner just alludes to, Michael thinks that once the righteous die, they will never be in the gay that the

Greek word is gay. Gay meaning earth. So I I'll I'll admit I think the questioner is onto something there.

OK, very good. Thank you. Here's a question for Michael. If the resurrection is happening now, do you also believe the judgment is happening now?

So I believe the resurrection was a believer that puts their faith in Jesus Christ. They pass from death to life.

When you do that, Romans 8 one tells you that there's no condemnation for those that are in Christ. So yes, they pass out of judgment.

However, when we're talking about the resurrection of the dead, we're qualifying that that resurrection was going to take place at the destruction of the power of the holy people, which again,

I don't believe that resurrection of the dead that Anastasis Necroi is ongoing, nor do I believe that judgment is ongoing.

OK, Chris, yep, yep. Yeah, really quick. I'll just say that I think this is another good question that's onto something here, because if you think that the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20 was fulfilled in our past with the destruction of the

Jerusalem temple, and if indeed you think that all condemnation language in scripture refers to the condemnation people had then and there,

I'm genuinely curious what reason Michael or any other hyperpreterist might have for thinking that anybody isn't saved.

I have more respect for hyperpreterists like Max King, I think, who is a universalist, because if you think that there's no more biblical judgment language awaiting fulfillment in our future, what reason do you have to think that anybody who dies doesn't go immediately to heaven?

But we'll have to save that for another debate, I suppose. OK, this is another question for Michael.

Mr. Date believes that your view qualifies as what Paul calls gangrene in 2 Timothy 2, 17 through 18.

The view there is saying that the resurrection has already happened. How do you respond? Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to that.

Again, Hymenaeus and Paulides, they were saying that the resurrection had already occurred prior to the time that Daniel chapter 12 says that it would occur at the destruction of the power of the holy people.

As I asserted in my one of my statements there with Matthew chapter five, that Matthew chapter five demands that all the jots and tittles will be fulfilled and then the end, you know, then they will move into a new heavens and new earth.

Therefore, Hymenaeus and Paulides were saying that the resurrection had occurred prior to the destruction of the power of the holy people, prior to the time of the coming of the

Lord, etc. So that's why their teaching at that time was a heresy. It was indeed a heresy before the destruction of Jerusalem to say that the resurrection had already occurred.

All right, Chris. Yeah, I'll just respond by pointing out that Michael admitted during cross -examination that if the resurrection hasn't taken place, then his view qualifies as the heresy that Paul is condemning here.

You know, he's used a lot of language in this debate and elsewhere of me hereticizing him when he's acknowledged that if I'm right about the resurrection not having already been taken place, then he does fall under the condemnation of Paul here.

So it's not me who's hereticizing his view. And anybody who's watching that isn't convinced by Michael Miano's case must, based on 2

Timothy 2, 17 and 18, along with the early church's testimony, agree that this view is outside of the pale of Orthodox Christian faith.

Okay. Michael James is clarifying a prior question. He says, what I was implying with my last question on John 14 and the other verses is that Jesus can be experienced in a spiritual, non -corporeal sense.

So why is it so important Jesus has a physical body? Okay, now I understand the question, and that is a good question.

And the answer is really simple. It's because the promise that people were looking for, the Jews who wrote 2

Maccabees, notwithstanding Michael's strange reading of it, 1 Enoch, the apocalypse of Moses or the life of Adam and Eve, all throughout the

Talmud, the Jews that received their resurrected children back, what they were looking forward to was a physical resurrection of the dead.

The reason why a resurrected physical body is so important is because that's how Jesus conquers death is by coming out of the grave alive and immortal.

So yeah, I agree that we can be in Christ and experience fellowship with Him in the here and now, but that doesn't mean that that's the only reason why

He appeared to anybody in the way He did was because somehow we needed to be able to see and hear Him or whatever. It's because His physical resurrection is, as Paul says, the first fruits of the resurrection awaiting, the resurrection that the rest of us will participate in.

And that's another thing that Michael wasn't able to sufficiently explain. So I hope that answers your question, Michael. He rose from the dead physically because we're going to rise from the dead physically.

That's how He defeated death. Michael, any thoughts on that? Um, yeah, I would just say that obviously

I had asserted that during the intertestamental period, as well as in church history, there's been a lot of confusion in regards to what the hope of Israel was.

So I'm not surprised to find that during that intertestamental period, there was some confusion amongst the Jews, which again, would be agreed within scholarship.

And also what I believe that question is pointing to is the fact that again, that obsession is outside of the biblical scriptures and the hope of the resurrection, the hope of Christ's presence was indeed a spiritual reality as the apostle makes clear in 1

Corinthians 2. All right, very good. Are you guys good for some more questions? It's up to Michael.

Yeah. All right. All right, cool. We'll go to a couple more. Eventually we'll have to stop though, because obviously we can't go on forever.

But here's a question for Chris. Explain Hosea 13 verse 1, which is about, is Israel dead because of guilt incurred through idolatry?

That is sin, the breaking of the Mosaic law. Ministry of death, 2 Corinthians 3, 7.

And I think this is a second part for Chris also. How can you ignore this death of Israel being incurred through idolatry, breaking of the

Mosaic law and its implications, quotations, echoes used by the New Testament authors? I mean, yeah, go ahead.

Yeah. I mean, the answer is simple. I don't think that I am denying any such thing or ignoring any such thing. I've already acknowledged that Ezekiel 37 is a picture of resurrection symbolizing the restoration of Israel from what

Michael calls a fellowship death. And that is very possibly what's going on in Hosea and even possibly in Daniel 12 too.

The question. But here's the thing. The New Testament authors are not only quoting these texts or alluding to these texts.

They're also alluding to quoting even passages like Isaiah 25 and 26, which are not about that kind of death.

It even says your bodies, plural, shall rise. It's a text that intertestamental Jews from who shared the very same seed analogy

Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 used that they were talking about a bodily resurrection. You see, the fellowship death of Israel and her promised restoration to life was part of a larger hope, which included the hope also of Israel's resurrection from the dead.

Indeed, from their perspective, because they believed human living human beings were embodied in breathing.

How could Israel be restored unless one day the remnant of Israel, Israel who actually believed in Yahweh and followed him, would one day come back to life and live forever?

Israel, from their perspective, wouldn't be restored if that didn't happen. So this language of resurrection in the

Old Testament, in the few places where it's used as a symbol for the restoration of Israel, the reason why those texts were thought by intertestamental

Jews, like the ones Paul alludes to in his seed analogy, the reason they thought that it also promised a future bodily resurrection from the dead is because the hope of Israel in restoration couldn't fully and finally be restored and resolved until Israel was bodily raised from the dead, which is exactly what texts like 1

Corinthians promise, which, by the way, it's not just Israel who would rise from the dead in 1 Corinthians 15. It's all in Christ, the

Greek Corinthians to whom Paul was writing. Okay, Michael? Can you just go back to the beginning part of that question, please?

Sure. All right. Explain Hosea 13 .1, which is about Israel dead because of guilt incurred through idolatry, that is sin, the breaking of the

Mosaic law. Second part here, how can you ignore this death of Israel being incurred through idolatry, breaking of the

Mosaic law and its implications, quotations, echoes used by the New Testament authors? Thank you for repeating the question and also thank you to Corey for that question.

Obviously, he's seeing the point that in 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul is citing, as Chris is rightly identifying it, to be talking about idolatry and this covenantal fellowship, relational death that Israel experienced due to their idolatry.

I think it's important to look at Hosea 6 as well as Hosea 13. And then the apostle Paul also quotes from Isaiah 25, verse 8, which again,

I think is an area for a further study, as I would disagree with Chris about the death that Israel suffered and therefore that which passed upon all nations.

All right. Thank you for that. Brayden has a question for Michael. If there is no future eschaton where death and sin and the devil are dealt with finally, fully and forever, then is there no future end for the devil?

Yeah, I think that's a great question. Obviously, that would be an area of further study and discussion in regards to what exactly the opposer, the satanos, the adversary is in scripture and what we're dealing with in regards to the destruction of the devil.

I will assert a time statement. The apostle Paul says in Romans 16, verse 20, that the destruction of Satan was soon to happen, that they would soon crush

Satan under their feet. That was a promise to the first century Roman church. So again, pressing in on those time statements,

I would demand that that was about to happen and obviously has something to do with AD 70 in the first century.

All right, Chris. I'll just point out, this is what I said. If you accept Michael's view, everything changes.

It's not even recognizable Christianity. Satan's gone. Death and sin and evil will exist for eternity.

Bodies aren't necessary to being human. Christ isn't physically embodied anymore. It all unravels.

So I just want to urge you who are watching this. I tried to make the strongest case possible that I could and virtually none of it was addressed, that the first century

Jewish vision of resurrection was indeed bodily resurrection. We've already heard that Michael can't provide a single occurrence of resurrection language in the interdecismental period that referred to the kind of resurrection he's talking about.

And I've provided numerous where they refer to mine. What is the point I'm getting at?

When you abandon that case, though, for the pittance that we've heard from Michael, the whole thing falls apart and you end up with something that's not even recognizably

Christian. So if you think that he's on to something, tread carefully, my friend, because your entire faith will become unrecognizable as Christian.

OK, on that wonderfully lighthearted note, that concludes the questions from the live chat.

Thank you so much, guys, for listening in and bearing with us throughout this almost three hour debate.

I thought both of you guys presented very well, very respectful, even though it's a very passionate and important topic.

And so I very much appreciate both of you at what you guys had to offer. I hope I was an

OK moderator and I really very much enjoyed this. And so once again, if you have not already, please subscribe to the

Revealed Apologetics YouTube channel. Chris, where would you like to point people so they can become aware of your stuff, your material?

RethinkingHell .com or YouTube .com slash RethinkingHell for my work with the

Ministry of Rethinking Hell. TrinitySem .edu, S -E -M is short for seminary.

That's Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. I'm an adjunct professor and YouTube .com

slash TheApologetics. That's the first four letters of the word theology, Theo, and all the letters except for the

A in apologetics. TheApologetics, that's the show that I've resurrected yesterday. And there's a lot more

I could say. But if anybody wants to reach out to me with questions, you can email me at TheApologetics at Hotmail .com

or ChrisDate at RethinkingHell .com. All right. And Michael, where can folks find your material?

Thank you. Instead of giving a host of links as I think that would be rather confusing, I might just encourage people to find me on social media.

I'm on Twitter, you know, Pastor Mike Miano. I'm on Facebook, Mike Michael Miano. I can be reached through email at PastorMikeMiano, that's

M -I -A -N -O at yahoo .com. And of course, I imagine social media is probably the best place or simply

Google my name with the word Preterist next to it and you'll be brought to a host of websites and articles. All right.

Once again, thank you so much, gentlemen. And thank you so much, everyone, for listening in. That's all for tonight. Take care and God bless.