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

By way of introduction, I state that my opponent's position is simply the old "postponement theory" revisited. While premillennialists of old simply stated that the kingdom of God and/or kingdom of heaven never appeared at all, my opponent will, I presume, try to state that there are actually two kingdoms: one came as prophesied, predicted, and heralded. The other has been delayed, postponed, put-off for 2,000 years and counting. Such a delineation between "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" thus allows, I guess, a person to imagine that he is not denying the plain statements of Daniel, Isaiah, Jesus, and John: he is just "sorta" denying them - denying them with a wink and crossed fingers. Now, a reader might wonder, "Why worry about it?" Well, for this reason: my opponent's speculative theories, including this postponement business, strike at the very heart of prophetic veracity. He envisions two kingdoms! Why? One reason: to meet the demands of his silly positions on the so-called "rapture", the literal 1,000-year reign, the return of pagan Rome to power, and the like. That's all there is to it. Remove his speculations, and neither he nor anyone else would have come up with this "postponement" stuff. Another reason is that it allows folks to sit in coffee shops (and at computers) and elaborate on the "signs of the times" - just as Wm Miller, Judge Rutherford, Herbert Armstrong did. Anyway, my opponent envisions two kingdoms: one which was automatically deferred and another one of his own manufacture. The position, as I see it, reduces to this: he thinks his position (1) affords an escape from the inevitable consequences of his argument on the automatic postponement of the kingdom and (2) to evade such passages as Col 1: 13. So now he has two kingdoms, one of which was postponed and another which was never once foretold nor mentioned in the divine plan. Now it will be his task to prove it; for now, I am in the position of denying or "conning" a position which has not yet been fully stated - and probably will never be precisely explained. I shall begin with Dan 2: 44: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." and I shall couple this prophesy with both Isaiah 2: 2 and Joel 2: 28-32 "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." Alright, I introduce Joel 2 simply because the Apostle Peter said in Acts 2, "This it that" - so that's that. In Daniel 2, I presume that no one will deny the following order in fulfillment, although the dates are approximate: 1. The Head of Gold: the Babylonian Empire (606BC - 536BC) 2. The Breastplate of Silver: the MedoPersian Empire (536BC - 331BC) 3. Belly and thighs of Bronze: The Grecian Empire (331BC - 30BC) 4. Legs of Iron: The Roman Empire (30BC - 400AD) "In the days of those kings" restricts the time element of the prophesy. What kings? The Roman emperors. So there is a definite time-element involved in Nebuchadnezzar's Dream and Daniel's interpretation. Unless a kingdom was established within that time frame, I submit that the prophesy simply failed. I do not know my opponent's exact position on this passage, so I shall ask, (1) "Was the kingdom as prophesied by Daniel established during the reign of the Roman Emperors between ~30BC and ~400AD or not?" If not, has it occurred to anyone that when a prophesy is inseparably linked to a time-element, it cannot be postponed or else the prophesy failed? If the time-element makes no difference, then .. umm .. I think I'll become a prophet: "I predict the south Texas will have a bad ice storm this winter." It could happen. It eventually will. I think I'll "postpone" it til it does. With Dan 2 as the background, I will simply state that my opponent's assertion that the "kingdom of heaven" as used by Matthew is somehow different from the "kingdom of God" as used elsewhere is purely arbitrary and, in fact, manufactured to meet the demands of his theories. The terms are used interchangeably in Matthew and Mark: Mark 1: 14, 15 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Matthew 4:17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Alright, it does not take a Biblical scholar to see that "kingdom of God" in Mark is equivalent to "kingdom of heaven" in Matthew. My opponent's task will be to clearly explain the difference and give some kind of internal evidence that such a difference is necessary. It won't do to say: "Oh, there is a millennium so I'll devise a kingdom-postponement theory to accommodate it." (2) Please explain clearly, based upon internal evidence, the difference between the two phrases as used in Mark and Matthew. Did Jesus state that two different kingdoms were "at hand" (imminent, near, close-by) 2,000 years ago? I assume that my opponent will merely assert that He did! Not only that, but (even though both were "at hand") it seems that one came about right on schedule, yet the other has not shown up yet. If so, any significance underlying the heralds of the impending kingdom as "at hand" amount to three ciphers, two naughts, and a zero. "At hand", to my opponent, means whatever he asserts: again it's all presumptive and arbitrary. For one so bent on literalizing everything from beasts to serpents to millenia, it is singularly odd that "at hand" and "near" and "nigh" have no meaning at all, isn't it? So a 1,000 reign is literal, but "at hand" means 2,000 years and counting? I will pause due to the difficulty in anticipating "pros" arguments and allow him to fully explain his position. And I'll ask (3) "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?"