DOBBS-V-PRESTON WRITTEN DEBATE
DON K. PRESTON’S EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE
Dobbs’ last negative was bad, but his seventh is even worse!
Dobbs’ desperation shines: “The burden of proof is on Don Preston; it is the obligation of the negative to examine the affirmative’s position.” Well, Amen, Buster Dobbs!
So why won’t you “examine” my arguments, Buster?
I have offered numerous arguments. Dobbs has not “examined” one! He has totally ignored them!
Dobbs repeats his desperation mantra: “Similarity is not identity.”
Problem: Dobbs does not prove that the “similarities” in the texts offered, are not identity!
Because Buster keeps repeating his mantra does not prove that the parallels adduced are not true identity!
I will repeat some of my arguments, and challenge him to prove difference of identity.
Daniel 12:2 foretold the resurrection. Matthew 13:39f foretold the resurrection.
Daniel 12:3: the righteous would shine. Matthew 13:43: (citing Daniel) the righteous would shine.
Daniel 12:4 foretold the end of the age. Matthew 13:39f foretold the end of the age.
Daniel 12:6-7 says “all of these things” would be fulfilled, “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.” Jesus’ prediction of his coming and the end of the age would be when Daniel 12:3 was fulfilled.
Thus, Jesus’ prediction of his coming, the resurrection, and the end of the age would be fulfilled when “the power of the holy people is completely shattered.”
Buster, I challenge you: tell the readers when the power of the holy people was completely shattered. Buster, why do you totally, repeatedly ignore this question? Oh, wait, we know why!
To negate my argument, Dobbs must prove:
That the resurrection of Daniel 12 and the harvest/parousia of Matthew 13 are not the same.
That Jesus was not citing Daniel 12:3 as the source of his prediction in Matthew 13:43.
That the end of the age in Daniel 12 is not the same end of the age in Matthew 13.
Dobbs knows he can’t prove any of these!! If he could, he would!
Second: Compare Daniel 12 with 1 Corinthians 15.
Daniel 12 predicted the time of the end (v. 4, 9f), as did 1 Corinthians 15 (v. 19f).
Daniel 12 foretold the time of the kingdom (v. 3), as did 1 Corinthians 15 (v. 50f)
Daniel predicted the resurrection (v. 2), as did 1 Corinthians 15.
Daniel 12 predicted resurrection to everlasting life, Corinthians predicted resurrection to immortality.
Daniel 12 foretold the same resurrection as 1 Corinthians 15.
But, the resurrection of Daniel 12 would be fulfilled when the power of the holy people was completely shattered (v. 7), A.D. 70.
Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 was in A.D. 70.
I challenge Dobbs to (even attempt to) prove the following.
That Daniel 12 and 1 Corinthians 15 speak of different times of the end.
That Daniel 12 and 1 Corinthians 15 speak of different resurrections.
That the “everlasting life” resurrection of Daniel 12 is different than the “immortality and incorruptibility” resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15.
If I prove that any of Mt. 24:36-25:46 predicted A.D. 70, Dobbs’ entire theory crumbles. He knows this.
Matthew 25:1-13 is the ultimate parousia of Christ for the wedding. (Dobbs)
But, in Matthew 22, the wedding would occur when the city that rejected and persecuted the servants sent to her, was destroyed (1-7).
The city that rejected and persecuted the servants sent to her, and that was destroyed, was Old Covenant Jerusalem.
Therefore, the wedding occurred at the destruction of Old Covenant Jerusalem.
Buster, is the city destroyed in Matthew 22:7 Old Covenant Jerusalem? Please answer!
Is Matthew 22 a different wedding than Matthew 25? Please answer!
If Matthew 22 is the same wedding– and it is– then Matthew 25 is the wedding of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and another of Buster’s key passages to definitively refute Preston vindicates Realized Eschatology!
Buster, to disprove this argument, you must prove:
That the wedding of Matthew 22 did not occur at the time of the destruction of the wicked city.
That the wedding of Matthew 25 is not the wedding of Matthew 22.
You know you can’t prove these things, don’t you, brother Dobbs?
Reader, watch for Dobbs’ answers to these arguments. So far, he has totally ignored them. Prediction: He will continue to ignore them, because he knows he cannot refute them. Instead, Dobbs wastes words, telling the readers what I believe, and assuming that his premillennial supporting, literalistic interpretation is true, and then declaring “victory!”
My proposition is proven. Dobbs’ eschatology is false.