Immortality or Resurrection (Updated) - William West (top ten ebook reader .TXT) 📗

For the Lord
Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with
the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and
remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air,
and so we shall always be with the Lord" [1 Thessalonians 4:13-17]. THE
CHRISTIANS WHO WERE ALIVE IN A. D. 70 WERE NOT AT THAT TIME
CHANGED FROM PHYSICAL TO SPIRITUAL BODIES, THEY WERE NOT
CAUGHT UP “TO MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR.” I do not believe Dawson
believes they were. I believe he was not trying to prove anyone alive was changed to a
spiritual body in A. D. 70, but was trying to prove the dead Old Testament saints were
resurrected and changed in A. D. 70, and after that time all saints are changed at the time
of their death; not "caught up TOGETHER with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
air." He is trying to prove there was one resurrection of all the Old Testament
faithful in A. D. 70, then many resurrections, a resurrection at the time of death of
each faithful. If this is not what he is trying to prove, them I cannot understand what he
is saying.
Max King says, "The eternal kingdom was possessed (Heb. 12:28) and the new heaven and earth
inherited." "The Spirit of Prophecy" page 239. The "new heavens and new earth" is not life on
earth after the destruction of Jerusalem, for after Israel destruction Christians were still
persecuted and the world is still full of evil today. It is the same world that existed before
Israel was destroyed; we are now in the image of Adam, not Christ, all, even Christians,
suffer and die, death has not been abolished. THE A. D. 70 DOCTRINE HAS NO
PLACE FOR LIVING CHRISTIANS BEING “CHANGED” AT THE COMING OF
CHRIST.
Christ “brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” [2 Timothy 1:10].
WHEN DID THE OLD COVENANT END?
At the death of Christ or in A. D. 70?
"Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein you were also raised with him
through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, being dead
through your trespasses and the un-circumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make
alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the
370
bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: AND HE
HAS TAKEN IT OUT OF THE WAY, NAILING IT TO THE CROSS; having
despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing
over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a
feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day" [Colossians 2:12-15]. I know of no way
anyone could say any clearer that the Law of Moses was blotted out and nailed to the
cross AT THE DEATH OF CHRIST, not in A. D. 70. This was written by Paul when he
was in prison at Rome, about A. D 62, before Realized Eschatology says the Old
Covenant Law ended. The message of Hebrews, which was written before A. D. 70, is
that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant with a new and better sacrifice, a new
priesthood, new sacraments, a new tabernacle or temple [John 1:14; John 2:19;
Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21].
Preterits tell us that there was an over lapping of the two, that the Old Covenant was
not nailed to the cross; and it did not end unto A. D. 70.
Dawson used "The abomination of desolation" [Matthew 14:15; Daniel 9:27] to prove
the resurrection took place in A. D. 70. Christ came in judgment on Israel at that time just
as He did in judgment on nations in the Old Testament. I cannot understand how he gets a
resurrection out of "The abomination of desolation," or as Luke puts it, "When you see
Jerusalem compassed with armies" [Luke 21:20]. Luke then adds, "Then know that her
desolation is at hand." The "Abomination of desolation" was the armies that
DESTROYED Jerusalem, not restored it. HOW CAN A RESURRECTION OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT FAITHFUL BE GOTTEN OUT OF "The abomination of
desolation" OR THE DESOLATION OF A NATION?
Christ came in judgment on Israel at that time just as He did in judgment on nations in
the Old Testament.
• On Israel [Zephaniah 1:14-18].
• On the Nations [Joel 3:16-16].
• On Egypt [Ezekiel 30:3-4; 32:7-8; Isaiah 19:1].
• On Babylon [Isaiah 13:10-20].
• On Edom [Isaiah 34:4-6].
• On Arier in Israel [Isaiah 29:5-6].
Israel was destroyed in the Jewish war with Rome, which last for about five years and
ended in A. D. 70. JUDGMENT DID COME ON ISRAEL IN THAT
GENERATION [Matthew 23:36], AND ISRAEL WAS DESTROYED IN THAT
JUDGMENT, BUT THERE IS NOT ONE THING SAID ABOUT THE
RESURRECTION OF ANYONE OR ANY NATION; NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT
THE RESURRECTION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS WHEN THE
NATION WAS DESTROYED. A resurrection in A. D. 70, the only resurrection there
will ever be had to have been at that time for realized Eschatology to be true; it is based
entirely on a resurrection that is not in the Bible.
"The Galatians letter is an indignant protest against and refutation of Judaizing teachers" B. W.
Johnson, The People's New testament With Notes, Volume 2, Page 163.
Speaking to Jews [Galatians 2:14-15] Paul said, "Even we believed on Christ Jesus,
that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by
the works of the law" and "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by
the law; you are fallen away from grace" [Galatians 2:16 and 5:4]. This was written in
371
about A. D. 57 when the law would have been in effect, and keeping the law would have
justified if there had been an over lapping of the Old and New Covenants unto A. D. 70.
Sam and I have been in communication with each other a few times by e-mail, and I
have thought of him as being a friend that I have not seen in person; I think the things he
had written in the past are among the best books I have. He says on page 2, "I'm certainly
not disparaging Robert, as he's only saying what most of us tacitly believe, that the subject of the
resurrection is predominantly (or even exclusively) a New Testament subject. I believed the same thing
until 2005 myself." My prayer is that he will see that Realized Eschatology is not the truth
before it is too late.
“The A. D 70 doctrine says ‘all things’ have been fulfilled: John speaks of 'all thing' (19:28); Luke
speaks of 'all things' (Acts13:29); Mark speaks of 'all things' (13:20); Luke again speaks of 'all
thing' (24:44); Peter speaks of 'all thing' (1 Peter 4:7). What you need to notice is, the 'all things'
of these passages have different things in mind. Because Max claim the 'all thing' in Matthew
17:11 is the same as the 'all things' in Acts 3:21 he is forced to the absurd view he told us of in a
former proposition, viz., The Baptist was Elijah if they accepted him to be, otherwise he wasn't!
But look: In John 19:28 Jesus knew all things were fulfilled and so he asked for a drink and died.
Now 'all things' were not literally completed but the passage says 'all thing.' Obviously the 'all
things' of that passage has a specialized reference. In Acts 13:29 we are more explicitly told that
when they had 'fulfilled all things that were written of him' they took him down from the cross.
Now clearly the 'all thing' here has a specific standpoint for you know there were other things
written of Jesus -- his resurrection for example. See how each writer will have his own
standpoint? Jesus said John has already ('Elijah is come already' -- Matthew 17:21) come and
had...'restored all things.' But if John had restored 'all things' it must have a specialized meaning
there. Because Max refuses to admit that the same expression may mean different things be
believe the Church was 'Elijah.' How dose that grab you? So what we do experience with Max? He
gets a concordance and gathers together all the passages having the same phases and lists them
and sits back smiling as if he had proved his point! The point I am making is abundantly clear
CONTEMPORARIES MAY USE THE SAME EXPRESSIONS AND MEAN DIFFERENT THING.” Jim
McGuiggan, "The McGuiggan-King Debate" Pages 171-172, Parkman Road Church of Christ, 1975.
ISRAEL HAD NOT OBTAINED, BUT THE ELECT HAD [Romans 11:7]. Paul
was put to death in Rome before A. D. 70, yet he said the elect had obtained what Israel
had not. What had the elect obtained? Being grafted in the olive tree - being accepted by
God as His chosen. In A. D. 70 Israel was not grafted in, it was totally destroyed. This
was written before A. D. 70 and the elect had obtained before when the A. D. 70 doctrine
says Christ was to come; this passage is not speaking of a coming of Christ at any time.
If, as Max King clams, the A. D. 70 view was believed and taught by the New
Testament writers, when was it lost? For many centuries no one believed it or know
anything about it. Then came Max King and found it and the Bible was reinterpreted
drastically to fit around his view.
In “Last Thing and Covenant Eschatology” in his answer to a question, “What is your
understanding of ‘no marrying and giving in marriage’” Samuel says this is only
speaking of the command given by Moses that a bother is to “perform the duty of a
husband’s brother” that “the name of his dead brother may not be blotted our from Israel”
[Deuteronomy 25:5-10]. The brother of the dead husband did not marry his brother’s
wife; THERE WAS NO MARRYING AND GIVING IN MARRIAGE [Luke 20:32-35].
Moses did not command the brother who may have had a wife to take a second wife; if
the brother had had 10 or more brothers that died, according to Samuel he would have
372
had many wives. “In the resurrection” he changed to “after A. D. 70,” and says that in
the resurrection marriage is optional, not mandatory. Christ did not say marriage will be
optional after the resurrection but that there will be no marriage. “But they that are
accounted worthy to attain to they age, and the resurrection from the dead, NEITHER
MARRY, NOT ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAE: FOR NEITHER CAN THE DIE ANY MORE:
FOR THEY ARE EQUAL TO THE ANGELS; AND ARE SONS OF GOD, BEING SONS
OF THE RESURRECTIN” [Luke 20:2740]. Now we both marry and die. After the
coming of Christ and the resurrection the saved will not marry or die; marriage will not
be “optional.” Where did he find that marriage would be “optional” after the resurrection
when Christ says there would be no marriage or death?
He used Mark 10:19-20 to prove that in “the age to come” we will have house, etc.
Christ said, “There is no man that has left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or
father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s sake, but he shall receive a
hundredfold,
1. NOW IN THIS TIME, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions;
2. AND IN THE AGE TO COME ETERNAL LIFE” [Mark 10:29-30].
He changes having “land” etc. “now in this time” to having them in the “age to come” in
an attempt to prove