The kingdom as prophesied in Dan 2:44 and heralded in Mark 1:15 and Matthew 4:17 has never appeared

"To be clear, The Kingdom of God is an inward, spiritual(Romans 14:17), invisible kingdom inside you(Luke 17:20-21 ... whereas the Kingdom of Heaven is a literal, visible, earthly kingdom of Christ reigning over the earth." That's about as clear as mud. All this talk about "invisible" and "visible" kingdoms is just sectarian jibberish invented to satisfy the demands of some theory. Do you notice there is no Bible passage for his 2nd part about the so-called "visible earthly kingdom"? ** ""Many expositors make the two the same because it APPEARS that they are, WHEN THEY'RE NOT." There's a very good reason why so many expositors state that the "kingdom", "kingdom of heave", "kingdom of God", and "kingdom of His dear Son" are all the same. ** "The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are BOTH THE KINGDOMS OF JESUS CHRIST." Absolutely! Mainly because they are one and the same. So the kingdom of Jesus Christ represents both? I give you Col 1: 13: "and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." "His dear Son" is Jesus Christ, isn't it? So the verse means, "and hath translated us into the kingdom of Jesus Christ". ** "Concerning Mark 1 and Matt 4, he says "There is a huge problem with her logic though." No, the two are synonyms. No logistical problem at all. There is a 'huge problem' with trying to defend a theology of premillennial speculation, though. ** "She assumes that I make the phrase "at hand" metaphorical. I do not." Ok, you take it literally. Thus, when Jesus and John spoke of the kingdom of heaven as being "at hand", they meant literally, as per you. Fine. If Jesus meant it literally, and both of us say that He did, which one of us is keeping Jesus true to His word? ** "The Kingdom became postponed and God turned to the Gentiles. Is that clear, Con? IT WAS "AT HAND" BUT NOT ANY MORE. The Kingdom of God never got postponed BECAUSE ITS SPIRITUAL." Alright, there we have it. The kingdom of heaven heralded as "at hand" by both John and Jesus was POST-PONED! So they simply got it wrong! My opponent says that both Jesus and John explicitly said it was "at hand", and my opponent says, "Oh, that's literal." But it didn't happen! It hasn't happened yet. So Jesus and John literally missed it, huh? ** "IT WAS "AT HAND" BUT NOT ANY MORE." Well, he elects to cling to his speculations. Alright, then it was never truly, really, actually "at hand" to start with, was it? I repeat: when a Biblical prophecy has a time-element to it, it cannot be postponed. If it could be and were, then the prophesy was just wrong. If John and Jesus messed up by 2,000 years on this deal, how many more times did they foul it up? For one who clings so tightly and absolutely to a lot of guesswork on future events - and then defends the prognostications, you sure "pigeon-hole" and "postpone" events with ease. ** I asked: ""Has the kingdom of Col 1: 13 yet appeared, and if so, which one is it? And can you prove it without employing circular reasoning?" My opponent replied: "The Kingdom of Colossians 1:13 is the Kingdom of God. Notice SPIRITUAL SALVATION in verse 14." So he says it has appeared. Very well. Obviously it has. He states (or asserts) that Col 1: 13 refers to the "kingdom of God", but not the "kingdom of heaven". His proof? Verse 14: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." Certainly salvation is in the kingdom. Nobody denied that. But your proof that Col 1: 13 does not refer to the "kingdom of heaven" is sorely lacking. ** " Its clear from Daniel 2:43 that these kings are not human" Clear to whom? The vast majority of Bible students do not assign some other-than-human meaning, sort-of a theological E. T. I simply give two examples: "the Romans shall mix with people of other and many nations that shall come in among them, and unite in setting up kingdoms; or these kingdoms set up shall intermarry with each other, in order to strengthen their alliances, and support their interests" - Gill, Baptist "The expression "seed of men," as here used, would therefore denote some intermingling of an inferior race with the original stock; some union or alliance under the one sovereignty, which would greatly weaken it as a whole, though the original strength still was great. " Barnes, Presbyterian ** "But when it says "the days of these kings" it's not to any kings of the 1st century." That's not what the passage says, is it? Verse 40 states, " And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron ... " And you concur: "The 4th kingdom of Daniel 2 in verse 44 is the Roman Empire." Verse 42 continues, "so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken." Which kingdom? The one of verse 40, the Roman Empire. Without a break or mention of any different kingdom, we have v 44. What do you mean, looking over in Revelation, then trying to claim that the kings aren't even human? Do y'all see what I mean by silly speculations based upon figurative language? Could you explain Dan 2: 40-44 a little more clearly. If nothing else, your explanations are quite interesting compared to all these world-renowned commentators. ** HOWEVER, IT NEEDS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT Jesus came ORIGINALLY ONLY FOR THE JEWS(Matthew 10:5-7). NONE OF THE GENTILES WERE TO BE SAVED." I emphatically deny that. It's not the point of this discussion, but of course, is essential to your theology on premilleniallism. Jesus Christ came for both Jew and Gentile. Such was the mystery of the ages: that both Jew and Gentile would be united in one body, the church, and I cite Ephesians, particular chapter 1. ** "NOTHING IN ACTS 2:16-21 happened in Acts 2 at all. " Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; and it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh I can't figure it out: those old Jews were hearing sounds as of a mighty rushing wind, hearing Galileans speak in foreign languages, seeing tongues as of fire sitting on top of them, and Peter says, "This (what you are seeing and hearing) is THAT spoken by Joel. And now comes acvavra and says, "No, Peter, this was not THAT. None of it happened." *** "He is saying, "This is what Joel says" There's a certain warning pronounced on people that add or remove. "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." Peter didn't simply say, "This is what Joel says." He says, "This is THAT" - what you are seeing now is what Joel was talking about: this is the beginning of fulfillment of that prophesy, and the prophecy was ultimately fulfilled at the conversion of Cornelius. I'm amazed that someone who specializes in Biblical prophesy would deny that when Peter said "No, fellas, these guys aren't drunk. Look how early it is - 9 AM. This is that which was spoken by Joel", he meant literally, "THIS is THAT." For me, when Peter says, "THIS is THAT, then THAT's THAT, and I have the best commentator in the world on the subject - an inspired apostle. You, however, come along and flatly deny it: ""NOTHING IN ACTS 2:16-21 happened in Acts 2 at all. " I do not think you would make such rash statements unless you were defending an entire system - premilleniallism. I have one general question: If Jesus can change an "at hand" to mean 2,000+ years (which I deny anyway), could He not shorten this supposed 1,000 year reign to one second? Would that be possible?