The kingdom of Jesus Christ was brought into existence in the First Century A. D.

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you,There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.Andafter six days, Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them." (Mark 9: 1-2) I alleged that my opponent believes that Mark 9: 1 was fulfilled by Mark 9: 2. Hedoes! He objected to my statement, "My opponent must claim that three people "perceived it" five days later!"Make it six days, then. Scholars differ due to variations in Jewish reckoning of time. He says,"I have not nor will I mention "five days later". The kingdom they saw was simply a vision nothing more." Then you can mention six days, for it can"t be any longer than that. I maintain that Jesus"s statement in Mark 9: 1 implies that some in His audience would die before the kingdom came. If so, my opponent"s position demands that some in the audience died withina six-day period. Peter, James, and John did not see the kingdom in a vision or elsewhere at the transfiguration scene.The Bible neither states nor implies such a thing. My opponent totally ignores the meaning ofeidowhich as a rule meansto perceive, to know. By his reasoning,a blind man could not perceive the coming of the kingdom. Response: Your statement on transfiguration and the interpretation of the 5/6 days is complete speculation again I'm afraid. We can go back in forth all day long with what we believe it to be. The only problem here is you contradict yourself by stating the kingdom is also within the heart. It is too late to ask you whether or not you mean it as a devotion to God in which I could understand. Yet to say they came into an established Kingdom of God before he died would be silly. If he had to die for the sins, then how could he have established the kingdom before he died and rose claiming the greatest victory over satan and sin thus far. I'm sorry but it just wouldn't make any sense. ***** Concerning Col 1: 13, my opponent says,"Your response here is meaningless as you do not infuse it with scriptures or evidence of what Paul truly meant." Assume? The wordtranslatedanswers tomethistemi, a verb which meanstotranspose, transfer, remove from one place to anotherand speaksof a change of situation or place.1That is what Paul meant. The problem is this: Paul said that he and the Colossians had been transferredfromthe kingdom of Satanintothe kingdom of Jesus Christ, and your position is that the kingdom of Jesus Christ did not even exist at the time. Response: My point is that the ministry(gospel of the kingdom) which you confuse as the kingdom(Christ's Reign) was established here. You go run to others outside of the book to tell you what it means when in reality it is truly simple. They received the knowledge and understanding(keys) necessary to teach and guide those in the generation and thereafter to the kingdom. I ask a simple question that has not been answered. If we were in Christ's Kingdom, why have we not been delivered from sin and it's temptation? If he ruled us in this kingdom which my opponent states is in our hearts wouldn't we be free from the tyranny of sin? I cite 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. If The kingdom resided in us, then we would have a piece of he who is perfect and cannot sin, making us perfect and free from sin. ***** Awriternamedred:"Your ASV text is the problem it seems" I have no problem in stating that the KJV translators mistranslated Rev 1: 6. The 1st-century Christian were not kings, but collectively they were a kingdom " and that is what John said. Christians are servants in the kingdom, not kings. Response: So you rely heavily on what others outside of the book dictate what you believe another man stated? That's like me becoming a glorified theologist then stating that another apostle before my time actually meant this. It is pure SPECULATION! That cannot be proven to this day. ***** "Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,and shall come forth, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Awriternamedred:"Everyone will be resurrected at the first resurrection and some will obtain the celestial body those that do not "make the cut" will be left to prove their worthiness to gain entrance into the kingdom." Response: That sounds to me like a doctrine of second chances akin to purgatory. Where do you see such a doctrine in John 5? 1. All in the tombs hear His voice 2. All are resurrected 3. There are but two choices: life (Heaven) or damnation (Hell) You cannot find your "those that do not make the cut will be left" in there at all " or anywhere else until you run across it in the types, figures, and symbols of the Apocalypse. Response: Nothing at all like purgatory. You too easily shy away from the good book of revelations. This is the reason why your theories are so limited in defense. The second death is far worse than any catholic doctrine of purgatory. ***** Regarding "the kingdom is at hand" and "shortly come to pass", my opponent says,"so it seems you have no clue you are simply guessing. I appreciate the efforts but is a futile effort if you cannot translate this into an absolute time frame. Could "at hand" mean anything of course it could yet if you cannot pinpoint an exact time you fail miserably with this attempt." Let"s start at the end. Actually, he believes that "at hand" and "shortly come to pass"are totally meaningless. When Paul said, "The time of my departure is at hand", he meant nothing " as per my opponent. "At hand" and "shortly come to pass" refer to imminency and have never once referred to a period of more than a hundred years in the entire Bible. I stated that "at hand" might mean a day, a week, a month, a year, or a decade. It could mean several decades. It is an indefinite but brief period of time. My opponent wants me to take an indefinite descriptor, try to ascribe an exact time to it " and if I can"t, then he says I have failed! Pfffffffffft. Let him find a single instance of the phrase meaning two thousand years. A thousand? Five hundred? Any takers? Response: Seems your guess is still as impotent as it has been since we began. I believe "at hand" to hold meaning but I also believe a sense of urgency causes the masses to flock towards redemption. As you said it could be any variable of time and we truly don't know therefore your guesses of when it was established or arrived are simply that, guesses. Or better yet is it 6 days later, or 600? Your guess must be as good as any right? "because for the work of Christ hecame nigh untodeath, hazarding his life to supply that which was lacking in your service toward me." (Philippians 2: 30) "Came nigh unto" iseggisen, the same word as in, for instance, Matt 4: 17. Does my opponent mean to tell us that it "could mean anything"? Land"s sakes, it means the man was close to death, that death was imminent. The fact that "at hand" means an indefinite brief period of time does not give my opponent license to claim that it is meaningless. Response: I never stated the words were meaningless, I only stated you cannot line up the times to fit your theory. Matt 4:17 and Phil 2:30 are two distant occurrences as well as the tone they speak. ***** Awriternamedred:"Secondly you have Noah's Ark. Have you forgotten God's power here when he turned the most vicious of beasts into herbivores?" My opponent apparently does not credit Noah with having enoughgumptionof separate tigers from wildebeests. Almost as powerful as God"s power is the power of my opponent"s imagination. Does my opponent speculate that piranhas attacked and ate other fish prior to the flood, then magically stopped, then cranked their naughty behavior up again at some point post-flood? You forget Eden dear friend. If we were speaking of magic we wouldn't need the bible now would we? If God chose to keep the beasts tame and docile they will be tame and docile not agitated and restless for forty days and nights. Only the power of the one true God could have brought the lions, tigers, and bears onto the ark so peacefully without Noah and his family losing fingers and limbs. It isn't speculation dear opponent but mere understanding. ***** Awriternamedred:"You say I rely too heavily on the figurative yet this is where you retreat to here with the animals. The Lion eating straw is also a sign of the times" Anna: "Tis not I who is turning the figurative into literal, but you. He thinks that if the lions aren"t out grazing in the pasture with the cows, then the kingdom of Christ isn"t here! As proof of the concept: Awriternamedred:"This is a sign that the lord has returned as well as the passage in Joel 2:28-32" Anna: See? The apostle Peter proclaimed on Pentecost that what the people were seeing then and there was a fulfillment of Joel 2: 28-32. He even quoted it to them and said, "This is that." Ordinarily, if an inspired apostle said, "This fulfills that", nobody would question it. My opponent says it didn"t! He reads Joel 2: 28-32 and thinks it is yet future. Why? Well, he reasons, the sun has not turned into darkness yet. The moon hasn"t been turned into blood. Yet, Peter says, "This is that!" The truth is in Joel 2, the sun and moon are representative of the Jewish authorities and dignitaries, including the high priest and Sanhedrin, who would be judged along with their entire system " and rejected " during the next several decades, beginning at Pentecost. Response: You do give me a thorough good time doing this with you. You seemingly missed key scriptures in Peter's sermon. Let's take a look at some of my favorites shall we. V.17 and it shall come to pass in the last days,(Peter cites Joel) V.29 "let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both deadand buried(not resurrected), and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. This was a lesson you my opponent have switched to figurative claims and unsupported biblical translations of what he meant when in fact this was peter teaching, then baptizing not saying anything had actually come to pass as of yet but it will. Stop reading into words that aren't there! ***** Awriternamedred:"Where you failed here is that if Christ did establish his kingdom in the 1st century or 2nd century between oh let's say 30-200 AD you must then ad in 1000 years from that time "" I would beg, even plead, with my opponent, after this debate is over, toplease read some other post-exilic Jewish apocalyptic literature. I fail to see how someone could expect to make sense out of the Apocalypse of John if he has never studied apocalyptic literature in general. The thousand years in Revelation 20 is not literal " in fact, apocalypses are not literal. By definition, (1) they employ grotesque figures, high typology, and extreme symbolism and (2) the prologue of an Apocalypse will always be literal. It has to be, or else the reader would become a victim of his own imagination. Anyway, my response to these calculations is:the thousand years of Revelation 20 is merely symbolic of a long, complete period of time.It is not literal. Response: Once again you let other literature cloud your judgement without questioning the literature and it's credibility itself. I will examine the literature if you actually study the great tribulation literature. "For every beast of the forest is mine, And the cattle upon a thousand hills." (Ps 50: 10) There are, literally, tens of thousands of hills. We know that God owns the cattle upon a thousand of those hills. Who owns the rest? "Remember his covenant forever, The word which he commanded to a thousand generations" (I Chron 16: 15) What happens at the 1,001stgeneration? Response: Read the following verse. It is an everlasting covenant. Yet why in revelations would it say thousand years expired. It would have to be time ticking away year by year for 1,000 to expire. You have two separate meanings, for two separate concepts. Simple. ***** I shall close exactly where I began, since the premise has yet to be disproven " despite our anticipated excursions into the figurative language of Revelation. 1. To come in the days of the Roman Emperors Response: You have still failed to prove how that timing works even though I asked you. 2. The time was fulfilled - it was near Response: John fulfilled the prophecy of the messenger. Mal 3:1-2 3. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by John Response: Once again too vague and unable to disclose an accurate date and time ultimately discrediting your proposition. 4. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by Jesus Response: same as statement above. To vague to pinpoint a time discrediting your position. 5. Preached as "at hand" by the twelve disciples (Matt 10: 7, Luke 9: 2) Response: He gave them the mission to spread the gospel of the word of the kingdom that is continuously spread today. The Gospel of the kingdom is simply that, Gospel(good news) Using at hand repeatedly still doesn't give you anything. 6. Preached as "nigh unto you" by the seventy (Luke 10: 9) Response: Same principle applies here. 7. Awaited by Joseph of Arimethea (Mark 15: 43) Response: He waited for the kingdom. Never said he received or entered the kingdom. We all are waiting for the kingdom. 8. Disciples were to pray for it (Matt 6: 10) Response: We STILL pray for it. 9. Would appear before some standing with the Lord would die (Mark 9: 1) Response: This was a vision that enabled few to see it. Yet how do they see it if it is only within the heart and not a manifestation. 10. Would come with power, power would come with the Spirit (Mark 9: 1) Response: Vision, Vision, Vision! 11. Would all occur in Jerusalem Response: You then contradict yourself again. For if that was the case why would we continue the kingdom(ministry) here in the states? All the signs have not come to pass. 12. Peter was granted the keys to it Response: Peter was given the knowledge to pass on to the others. PENTECOST 13. After, Pentecost, Paul said he was in the kingdom (Col 1: 13) False. I ask you stop using too many translated texts of the scriptures to back your stances. 14. After Pentecost, Paul said the Colossians were in the kingdom (Col 1: 13) False again. 15. After Pentecost, John said he was in the kingdom (Rev 1: 6, 9) False again. You state the original scriptures were wrong to substantiate. That's too easy of an excuse I'm afraid and not significant enough to displace the original text because they weren't "christian enough" 16. After Pentecost, John said his first readers of Revelation were in the kingdom (Rev 1: 6, 9) False again same goes as the above statement. 17. After Pentecost, Peter said we are a royal or kingly priesthood (I Pet 2: 9) Kingly isn't mentioned. Yet a chosen Generation is, a royal priesthood is, a holy nation is. These are mentioned yet who was chosen? 18. After Pentecost, John said that Jesus is the ruler of the earth (Rev 1: 5-6) I already stated that beginning from creation he made everything into existence so of course he rules it. Yet the kingdom you mention does not exist here. I end with this: My opponent has given her best in five rounds to attempt to prove the kingdom was established. Yet she refuses to credit Revelations as a reasonable source due to a book outside the bible she read. She is formidable as a source of knowledge yet a good deal of her knowledge based isn't of her own understanding but merely a combination of theories, strong assumptions and translated texts of the original scriptures. The kingdom cannot be established yet due to these key factors: The reign of Christ has not yet expired nor began if it was so then the father would've descended once Christ gives up his kingdom. There must be a time frame when Christ reigns and delivers the kingdom or there would be no need of prophecy. The great tribulation unknown to my opponent has not come to pass. It is a 3.5 year period in which the abomination of desolation(anti-christ) must run the world and lay waste to all who do not accept his mark. Christ must return to end the anti-christ There must be peace in the holy land not the wars that rage on now. Israel has not been gathered from the four winds of the earth My opponent could not satisfy an accurate time of when the kingdom was establish My opponent seemingly forgot and chose to ignore the docile animals in eden and noah's ark that supports isaiah's prophecy. Too many signs have yet to happen There needs to be a new temple built in Jerusalem This was a very interesting debate and I truly thank my opponent Anna for her spirit and strong faith and knowledge that gave me a chance to express my knowledge and to come to understand hers as well. I applaud and respect her for her competition as I did enjoy it thoroughly. Thank you