When the Resurrection Debate Isn’t Really About the Resurrection
Lessons on tone, audience, and pastoral framing from a messy exchange
Setting the Scene
The MythVision episode titled Full Preterism Resurrection Debate: Did the Resurrection Really Happen in AD 70? was billed as a theological face-off. On paper, it paired Don K. Preston, a long-time advocate of Covenant Eschatology, against Tristan Gabriel, introduced as an agnostic critic of Full Preterism.
From the outset, though, it was clear this would not be a normal intra-Christian exchange. Gabriel was introduced as an agnostic and spoke from a non-believing perspective, making it clear through his remarks that he does not hold to the Bible’s resurrection claims, and had, in the past, embraced a version of Preterism before walking away from faith entirely. His approach to this debate was shaped as much by personal grievance as by theological disagreement.
That framing changes everything: what unfolded was less a mutual exploration of Scripture, and more a collision between detailed exegesis and a ridicule-heavy skepticism.
The Technical Case That Didn’t Land
Don Preston brought to the table what he always brings:
Tight integration of Daniel 12, 1 Corinthians 15, Matthew 24, and Revelation 20.
Old Testament prophetic idioms for “resurrection” applied corporately to the covenant people.
Emphasis on time-texts (“this generation,” “about to,” “at hand”) that anchor fulfillment in the first century.
On a technical level, Preston’s case was internally consistent. But debates are not just about what is true; they are also about what is heard. His delivery assumed the audience could track rapid cross-references and grasp the covenantal framework without much narrative resetting. For those unfamiliar with his terms, it was easy to get lost.
The Counter-Case That Wasn’t
Tristan Gabriel did not present an alternative eschatological system so much as a posture of disbelief:
Ridicule was the primary rhetorical tool (“So you’re saying nobody came out of the ground?”).
Traditional futurist assumptions were deployed as a foil, but never exegetically defended.
Core time-text arguments were sidestepped entirely.
In place of a sustained counter-argument, Gabriel appealed to audience intuition: if the resurrection already happened, the world should look different; if “this generation” doesn’t mean what futurists expect, something is suspect. These were coupled with frequent off-topic remarks, ad hominem jabs, and rhetorical tactics that shifted blame for tone and direction back onto Preston; a pattern often described as gas-lighting. The repeated claim of being the insulted party, even after extended ridicule of his opponent, was one of the debate’s more striking reversals. These appeals were emotionally potent but logically thin.
Why the Debate Felt Chaotic
The exchange suffered from three mismatches:
Goal Mismatch - Preston was defending a system he believes is biblically true; Gabriel was attacking the plausibility of the Bible’s claims altogether. In fact, Gabriel said in his closing that his stated goal for the debate was to get Preston to say something that would be detrimental to his ministry.
Tone Mismatch - Preston’s scholarly seriousness vs. Gabriel’s sarcastic undercutting left the conversation pulling in opposite directions.
Audience Mismatch - Preston was speaking to those willing to follow the textual trail; Gabriel was speaking to those who would never leave the surface.
This combination made it nearly impossible for the debate to stay on one playing field.
The Pastoral Undercurrent
Perhaps the most telling detail was Gabriel’s personal story: his prior engagement with Preterism left him disillusioned. It’s not hard to imagine the path - Preterism dismantled his futurist framework, but he was never shown how the fulfilled hope of AD 70 is not an ending, but the secure foundation of the kingdom age.
Without that pastoral framing, the shift feels like loss: “the thing you were waiting for is gone.” For Gabriel, this became part of his deconversion story.
This is the Gabriel Outcome: deconstruction without construction. It’s a sobering reminder that accurate exegesis is not enough. Truth, when poorly framed, can leave hearers with less faith, not more.
Lessons for Future Debating
This debate may not have been a model of fair theological engagement, but it offers valuable takeaways:
Frame the Gain First - Lead with the benefits of fulfillment before dismantling futurist timelines. Show what believers have now in the New Covenant age.
Control the Playing Field - Don’t let ridicule dictate pacing. Reassert definitions and terms of engagement.
Adapt for Audience Capacity - Dense argument chains need “you are here” markers to keep listeners from getting lost.
Name the Tone - If one party is mocking, say so calmly and clearly; it forces the audience to reckon with method, not just message.
Guard the Pastoral Core - Every technical point should land in a pastoral takeaway. If you win the text but lose the hearer’s hope, you’ve lost the war.
Define the Debate - A Scripture-based debate is impractical, if not impossible, when both participants do not believe in the Scriptures. The most productive debates begin with a foundation of shared authority, so that the disagreement can be evaluated on common ground. Attempting to discuss a rich theological point like resurrection with an unbeliever, especially one whose stated aim is personal harm, is not just unproductive; it is worse than ill-advised.
Closing Reflection
This was not the clean, point-by-point duel that some viewers may have hoped for. But it was a vivid case study in what happens when debate partners aren’t actually debating the same thing.
For Covenant Eschatology advocates, the lesson is twofold: sharpen the exegesis and sharpen the storytelling. The hope fulfilled in AD 70 is not the removal of expectation, it is the arrival of the kingdom that will never pass away. That must be said, and said well, if we want the next “Tristan Gabriel” to walk away convinced instead of disillusioned.
