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

Jesus doesn't have to try to convert the Jews, they will convert after the tribulation. Hebrews 8:10 says, "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days(tribulation), saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." This was written aftr the Jews crucified Christ, meaning sometime in the future THERE WILL BE A MASS CONVERSION OF THE JEWS for God will write it on their hearts. Silly speculations Con? No, I use Scripture! Con said, "Of course, the "power" came on the Day of Pentecost: "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem". (Acts 1: 8). And the kingdom, the church, came on the same day." And yet you have provided no verse to prove the Kingdom of Heaven is the church. They had power to be witnesses, NOT kings. Con said, "Your position is: 1. that Jesus knew aforetime that the Jews would crucify Him. (And He did) 2. Jesus knew that His own people would reject Him (And He did) 3. Jesus went right ahead and, along with John, announced the kingdom was "at hand", knowing all the time that it wasn't. (That's unbelievable)" Indeed, God does know everything. In fact, God knows people will reject him and go to Hell and he doesn't do anything about it. Yes, God knew that the Jews WOULD reject him, but the KINGDOM WAS STILL AT HAND BEFORE THEY REJECTED HIM. He gave them the option, even though he knew the outcome. But that's just God's character. He knew Adam would eat from the Tree even though he told him not too. Why didn't God just not create the Tree? You could also ask why he told the Jews the kingdom was at hand, but he knew they would reject him. It's just God's way of doing things. Con said, "You've already said that "those kings" refers to the Roman emperors. LOL @ "in the first century". Daniel DID say that the kingdom would be established in the days of the 4th worldwide kingdom, the Roman Empire. Well, the Roman Empire has come and gone. And, simply to make things fit, you have to assert that Rome will once again rule the world." First off, you didn't answer A SINGLE QUESTION I BROUGHT UP ABOUT THAT VERSE NOT REFERING TO ROME IN THE FIRST CENTURY. You haven't provided a SINGLE REBUTTAL. I will let my arguments stand until you do. Here they are: Has God's kingdom consumed all these kingdoms? Then why is Rome still a powerful entity? How about Greece? Or Iran(Persia)? Has God's kingdom been left to other people? Indeed it has since God's nowhere to be found on this earth. He's left it to some lousy Christians who are in submission to secular governments. If we are kings NOW, then God has certainly left his kingdom to other people. Con said, "And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Gen 26: 4). Certainly this is a Messianic prophesy, and I've never heard of a Christian commentator who said anything other than "all the nations" refers to both Jews and Gentiles. So the inclusion of the Gentiles was in the grand scheme after all." All the nations of the earth will be blessed THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. Christ came from Abraham which is what the verse is talking about. In that sense the Gentiles will be blessed, for Jesus died for their sins. But again, God knew that would happen. However, that's not who He originally came for. The Church was plan B, it was the result of the Jews rejection of Christ. Con said, "Of course, that is merely your assertion, for what it's worth. God was "done with Israel" when Israel committed a national sin by crucifying the Son of God - not because a few of them threw rocks and killed Stephen." No, Jesus forgave them at the Crucifixion(Luke 23:34). Remember, Jesus was "standing" to receive Stephen. He is sitting down on his throne in Heaven CURRENTLY. The standing signifies that Jesus was willing to bring in the Kingdom IF they had listened to Stephen. They didn't, and so now he is set down during the Church Age. You mean to tell us (and "us" includes the atheists that might read this) that the best a premillennialist can do is say that the first coming of Christ was, pretty much, a flop - and we now have a make-shift kingdom with no king? Is that it? That's what the Bible says. I gave you the verses(Matthew 4:8-9). It's up to you to accept them or reject them. Satan is currently the king. Con said, " I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Jesus: "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." He accomplished the work of telling the Jews to accept Him as the Messiah. Con said, " And I would like to remind Pro that I do not need reminding of a mere assertion because, as Pro knows, I believe Satan was indeed bound." You say this statement without addressing the verse I gave(Romans 16:20). I will let my argument stand since you have avoided addressing the verse. Con said, "That simply shows that the disciples continued to make the same mistake that you do, only they had more of an excuse. Isn't it rather interesting that the Jews expected an earthly kingdom? I wonder where they got the idea from. Further, that would have been the ideal moment for Jesus to tell his disciples that His kingdom was ONLY spiritual, and yet He didn't tell them that(Acts 1:7)! "Further, God has done a lousy job of reigning over this world if he's the king right now. Wouldn't you have to agree, Con?" Con said, "Absolutely I would not." You say that without examining my reasoning. Consider Con: Millions of murders, rapes, thefts, wars, explosions, famines, plagues, extortion, government coverups, and holes in the ozone layer makes God a lousy king if he's ruling right now. Satan being the king MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE. Con said, "Why, no one denies that the gospel was to be preached to the Jews first. The problem is: you deny that it was ever intended for Gentiles. See Eph 3." Which shows that Gentiles are Plan B if it was for the Jews first! Con said, "No, it (Joel 2) was obviously figurative to start with: Peter didn't "make it" that way. Here's your problem on the passage: Peter EXPLAINED it with an inspired commentary, and his explanation proves that it was figurative. You, on the other hand, simply deny his explanation , assert that none of it occurred, and press forward with your theories." Well, but the events of Joel 2 WILL BE FULFILLED LITERALLY. The Sun turns to darkness and Moon turn to blood in Revelation 6:12. Remember Revelation was WRITTEN AFTER PETER SAID THESE THINGS. The Jews do get deliverance at Mount Zion at the Second Coming(Zechariah 14). All flesh do get the Spirit poured on them at the Second Coming(Hebrews 8:10). Just because Peter made it figurative FOR A SERMON ILLUSTRATION DOES NOT MEAN IT WONT BE FULFILLED LITERALLY.