1. I made my opening statements on the “time” of the occurrence of the resurrection. I cited the framework for the eschatological work of the Holy Spirit, Mic 7:15 which is 40 years, as the days of Israel coming out of Egypt.
Next, Deut. 31:29; 32:5, 20 focused on the “terminal generation” of Israel in their last days, which is the generation living in the time of Christ, and which he and the apostles referred to as the “wicked and adulterous generation”, the “perverse and crooked” generation. Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38;, 16, Acts 2:40 and Phil. 2:15.
Then we offered Dan. 12:1 & Matt. 24:21 as the “appointed time” for the resurrection (which Josh and I already agreed that all of Matthew 23-25 was fulfilled in 70AD. (This agreement actually ended the debate and exposed Josh’s inconsistencies).
Then I gave 1 Pet. 1:10-12 to show the O.T. prophets saw the end times events not for their time but Peter’s generation, i.e. “to us” meaning the same generation in which the Holy Spirit was poured out.
I also cited “mello” with the present infinitive speaks of imminent events about to happen soon, showing its use in Acts 24:15 that there was “about to be a resurrection of the just and the unjust” [–not just the just as Josh later tried to argue]. (This text is quoting Dan. 12:2). Also, Paul uses the term again in 2 Tim. 4:1, linking the judgment, of the living and the dead (resurrection) at his appearing (coming) and the coming of the kingdom, –all in one verse, as about to occur.
Then I showed where Paul offered a commentary on Acts 24:15 (and Daniel 12:2-3) in Romans 13:11-12 saying that it was already in progress; “now, it is the hour to awake out of sleep for “now” is our salvation nearer than when we first believed and that the night was already far spent and the day was at hand. I explained that 2016 and counting (almost 2000 years which is Josh’s view) could not be nearer to the first century generation than when the Romans first believed on Pentecost of AD 30, but AD 70 was only 10 years away.
What was Josh’s response to the above arguments? He did a complete passover without addressing what I said and then asserted the resurrection had to do with a literal bodies coming out of the ground, –his literal resurrection view.
2. Then he argued that the queen of the south would rise in the judgment with the same generation living in the first century! But, because it did not fit his literal “corpse resurrection view” he denied what he read and affirmed. He said the queen of Sheba would not rise with that generation!!! That means Jesus lied. So, if you agree that Jesus is a liar, then Josh proved his point.
Josh’s arguments were not about “when” but about “how”. But his attempt to establish the “how” contradicted the “when” and “time” the Scriptures gave. He asked about the people of Nineveh also who would rise in the judgment with that same generation. Well, that was his problem. He should have answered himself. He cited the text that contradicted his own view. But, we gave him Matthew 23:32-37 to go along with both those verses from Matthew 12, showing God brought vengeance and judgment on all those from Abel to those living in his generation, which included both the Queen of Sheba and the people of Nineveh. Josh had no answer for it.
All those things came upon that same 1st century generation. Remember, he already agreed Matt. 23-25 were all fulfilled in 70AD. I thought it rather interesting when he read from John 11:24-26, where Martha said she knew the resurrection would occur at the last day (which again, is “time” or “when”) then he immediately said it wasn’t about the time. That is some fancy footwork. That last day was the last day of the “Jewish age” or “age of Moses”, which he places in 70AD.
Remember his position in the first debate for resurrection at the “end of the age” in 70AD?
3. Next he argued that Adam went to heaven. Now that was before the resurrection he argued for in the debate. I pointed out that if Adam went to heaven, he did so while he was yet in sin. Why? Because Jesus death was for the redemption of the transgressions (sins) which were under the first testament, (Heb. 9:15). That’s why the O.T. saints were yet in Hades, which was not emptied until Christ returned, 1 Cor. 15:56-57. Josh says that was future. But he says Adam got out before the coming (Parousia) of Christ. No, Paul said, the Lord would turn away ungodliness from Jacob when he came out of Zion. For this is my covenant to them when I take away their sins. (Rom. 11:27-28)
I demonstrated that “entrance into the Most Holy” was the “hope” of the saints. Christ had entered, (Heb. 6:19-20), but the dead had not. Abraham, and the Patriarchs were yet expecting to enter even as late as the writing of Hebrews (11:13-16), so they could not have been there already. If Adam got there, he got there before and without Abel. Yet the text said, “these all died in faith “NOT” having received the promises, God having provided something better for us (N.T. saints that they (O.T. saints) should not be made perfect (resurrected) apart from us.
That’s why the way into the Holiest of All (MHP) was not yet manifested as long as the temple stood, (Heb. 8-9). Josh had no answer for this. The temple did not fall and cease to have a covenantal standing until 70AD. None could enter before then. Entering the MHP is resurrection.
4. The last point I’ll make for now is that Josh argued that the Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection. He offered no proof of that. That is why I could not answer yes or no to his question. Read Acts 23:6-8 and if you find a physical body there I’ll eat my Bible.
You have to read that into the text. What the Pharisees believed according to Josephus, the Talmud and every other source checked was a resurrection of the spirit into a body after this life “under the earth”. They did not believe a dead corpse rose from the dead for the general resurrection. Read Josephus Ant. 18: 1, 3. They did not believe the wicked would be raised to life at all. This is also confirmed in the Talmud, the writings of Moses Maimonides (who goes into much detail) and in the Apocrypha, II Mac. 7:9, 14. See also 2 Mac. 12:44-45. So Josh was blowing smoke here.
Here is one quote from these Rabbis: “It is also apparent to us from those (Talmudic statements that those individuals whose souls return to their bodies (after death) will eat and drink and engage in sexual intercourse and sire children and die * after an extremely long life like the life which will exist during the days of the Messiah.
Further, the life following which there is no death, is the life in the world to come because there are no (physical) bodies there.** We firmly believed–and this is the truth which every intelligent person accepts — that in the world to come souls without bodies will exist like angels.” Note, they believed in an “interim” world between that would exist before the Messianic age in which people will return to their bodies after death but before the arrival of the “world/age to come in the days of the Messiah! The word physical above seems to be added. The original simply states ‘there are no bodies there” as the latter statement shows. “In the world to come souls without bodies will exist like angels.” So how could it be said they believed in a resurrection of the body from the ground? (See Moses Maimonides Treatise on Resurrection, p. 33. *
As specifically affirmed by Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean (Sanhedrin 92b). **
The Messianic era will see souls reunited with their bodies but in the world to come, there will be only spiritual existence. See Hilchoth Yesodei Hatorah 4:3-4. 5.
5. Josh claimed I did not understand firstfruits, saying Christ is the firstfruits and that a resurrection of the same nature and kind as Christ’s physical resurrection is implied and taught in the concept of firstfruits. That is false.
Josh can’t find a single physical resurrection in the Bible that aligns with the firstfruits concept in connection with Christ’s resurrection.
First, there were two portions of firstfruits. The first at the time of the barley harvest during the time of Passover. That represents Christ, who died on Passover and rose three days later as the firstfruits. That is referred to in Exodus 23:19 as the “first” of the firstfruits, implying a second portion. The second was taken 50 days later at Pentecost during the time of the wheat harvest according to Leviticus 23.
Can Josh show a physical resurrection on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2? No, and he didn’t try. Remember, he argues for yet future resurrection, which violates the very concept of the firstfruits. But, the Scriptures do speak of firstfruits (Jas. 1:18) who were brought forth with the “word of truth”. That means when they obeyed the gospel, being delivered from sin, they became firstfruits with Christ. See also Rom. 8:23, where they had the firstfruits of the Spirit. Connect that with Revelation 14:5, where the 144,000 are called the firstfruits redeemed from among men.
Here is the critical point about firstfruits, and it refers to both the time and nature. Only first century believers could be the firstfruits. 21st century believers were not first, and no where near first. They are about 45 generations later. So, the firstfruits had to be taken in the first century, otherwise they are not first. If there were an alleged coming of Christ today, we would the “last fruits” not the first. The idea is the same as the “firstborn” from the dead. Christ is the firstborn from the dead, and in Hebrews 12:22-23, you have the saints also called the firstborn ones.
The critical point about the firstfruits is that once they are taken, it means that the harvest season has begun. Since everyone admits Christ’s resurrection occurred in the first century, and we also see that “living saints” (who were not in literal graves) were called firstfruits that is proof the resurrection was already occurring out from among the dead. What followed was the remaining harvest at the end of the age. That is taught in Matt. 13:39-43. The harvest is the end of the age, and Josh agrees, the end of the age was 70AD. See his dilemma?
Since Josh admits this could not be a physical resurrection in the first century, he again conceded his argument. This is a long piece, and covers only our opening speeches. Not many will read it, but for those who want to learn and understand more about Covenant Eschatology, it is submitted. Check out my YT channel at https://youtube.com/AllThingsFulfilled for more details on this view.