One thing that has really bothered me when talking to futurist, especially those in the Partial Preterist camp, is their "adding" biological death to "The Death" Adam experienced in the Garden.
When I point out that Acts 26:23 clearly says that Christ was the first to rise from "The Dead" and how that rules out biological death they always say "well he was the first to rise and never die again."
On top of being one of the most annoying cases of presuppositions and adding to the Scriptures, I have always had a hard time showing them their argument is completely based on an already assumed point.
My question here is how can we use the biological resurrections that occurred after Jesus' Resurrection to show their faulty logic? Specifically, the resurrections of the boy that fell out of the room when Paul was preaching late into the night and the sweet old lady, Dorcas/Tabitha.
It seems to me that if Christ is the first fruits of the Resurrection than anyone who died "in him" would be resurrected in the same way he was, according to the futurist. However, you have these two cases of biological resurrections unto another biological death just like the OT saints. This seems to take away the argument that Christ being the first to "rise from the dead to not die again" argument of my futurist brothers. How can the fruit directly after the first fruits be completely different than the first fruit?
Any help with developing this line of argument would be greatly appreciated, if there is really a line of argument there to develop for this specific objection.
Thanks in advance.