DOBBS-V-PRESTON WRITTEN DEBATE
DON K. PRESTON’S FINAL AFFIRMATIVE (#12)
SUBMITTED 12-6-2006
Buster has glaringly revealed his error! He says the O.T. predicted Jesus’ incarnation, “but not the ultimate (second) coming.” (I.e. the resurrection, DKP) Incredible!
Buster, Paul said the resurrection of the dead would be when Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13 were fulfilled– “Then shall be brought to pass the saying…” Was Paul wrong? If Isaiah and Hosea did not predict what Paul predicted, then what they said could not be “brought to pass”!
Buster, where did the Pharisees get their hope of the resurrection? If Buster is right, and the O.T. did not predict the ultimate parousia (resurrection), then the Sadducees were right, for there were no O. T. resurrection prophecies!
Paul said that the promise of “the adoption, the redemption of the body”–that you believe is the resurrection – belonged to Israel “after the flesh” (Romans 8:23-9:1-5).
From what scriptures did Israel after the flesh get her resurrection hope?
Paul’s hope of the resurrection was nothing but “the hope of Israel” found in the Law of Moses and the prophets (Acts 24:14-15; 26:21-23).
The apostles’ N. T. eschatology (doctrine of the ultimate parousia), was based on, and taken from, the O. T.
Buster Dobbs admits that his eschatology is not based on and taken from the O.T..
Therefore, Buster Dobbs admits that his eschatology is not that of the apostles.
Buster fails, miserably, on 2 Peter 3.
Fact: Peter said his prediction of the Day of the Lord was foretold by the prophets who spoke before. I proved that this was the O. T. prophets. Thus, Dobbs’ position is falsified, prima facie.
Fact: Peter’s prophecy is from the O.T.. Dobbs admits that both Isaiah and Peter foretold the new creation. Yet, Dobbs denies any connection between Isaiah and Peter!
Buster, what O.T. prophecy is Peter alluding to, that foretold the new creation, as you believe Peter is predicting it?
Buster omits critical elements of Isaiah.
Isaiah 65:1-2 foretold Israel’s rejection of the gospel, and the calling of the Gentiles (Romans 10:20-21). Paul’s application of Isaiah 65 to his generation destroys Buster’s doctrine.
Israel’s disobedience would lead to her destruction, resulting in the new creation (Isaiah 65:13-17).
Isaiah predicted the salvation of the remnant. Paul said that was occurring in his generation (Isaiah 65:8f–>Romans 9:28f, 11:7f).
Isaiah said God would destroy Israel, and create a new people, with a new name (Isaiah 65:13f). Isaiah 62 said the new name would be given when the Gentiles were brought in!
Buster, did God destroy Israel, create a new people, with a new name, and convert the Gentiles at the return from Babylon? Yes or No?
Fact: Isaiah said in the new creation, the “wolf and lamb would feed together.” Isaiah 11 posits this in the Messianic kingdom (Isaiah 11:6f)! Romans 11 applies Isaiah 11 to the first century!
Fact: Buster interprets Isaiah spiritually, yet insists that 2 Peter 3 must be literal! He says “no weeping” is spiritual, but insists that Revelation 21-which directly quotes Isaiah 65–is literal.
Fact: The old creation would not be “remembered” when the new came, (65:17). Yet, in the return from Babylon, Israel remained under the same covenant, with the same name, as the same people of God–and the Gentiles were not converted!
Fact: Buster is wrong to deny that Isaiah 65-66 is the source for 2 Peter 3. Since Isaiah predicted the destruction of Israel, resulting in the new creation, this is what 2 Peter 3 predicted.
Summary
This is my last affirmative. Dobbs is bound not to introduce any new arguments/material into his response.
Here is what I have proven:
That all N. T. eschatology is based on the fulfillment of O. T. promises made to Israel after the flesh. Dobbs admits that he does not preach this!
That the resurrection would occur “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered” (Daniel 12:2-7), i.e. A.D. 70. Dobbs did not touch this!
That the end of the age (Matthew 13:39-43), would be fulfilled when Daniel 12 was fulfilled.
That the ultimate coming of Christ would be in the lifetime of the Thessalonians. Dobbs utterly failed to respond to this.
That the resurrection would be when “the Law” that was “the strength of sin” i.e. the Law of Moses by Buster’s own admission, was removed.
Buster has utterly failed to negate anything I have said.
In every conceivable manner, by emphatic and inspired statements of scripture, I have proven that Christ’s ultimate coming occurred at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.