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

If you review the response you can easily see the highlighted questions answered. Never the less thank you for your hasty response. My opponent doesn't seem to acknowledge the reign of God in the beginning of time. I think we fail to realize he had a throne lucifer coveted. He had to ban and cast lucifer down in the lake of fire for punishment but he had a throne and a kingdom to rule. I ask do you acknowledge he controlled all before and during creation? How can there be a kingdom if Christ hasn't arrived? It's simple the kingdom he came to teach on and establish WAS his dominion over sin. Since the great deception at eden his kingdom on earth was plagued with sin. The latter kingdom of heaven will not come into play until after the 1st resurrection has taken place. To say that the kingdom is coming shortly after his death on that generation CANNOT be proven only assumed. There was no historic date or event so significant of this stature that history forgot it. It was and still is a prophecy. My opponent foolishly cites prophecies of revelation and the end times that must happen. I ask my opponent again. What tribulation of 10 days has taken place in history so great that all these prophecies may be fulfilled? It has not happened and once again CANNOT be proved. As I stated before to my opponents affirmative there has always been a reign since the creation yet reigning the kingdom in the first century AD would mean there was NO kingdom prior to AD, which in turn means the world and all its inhabitants didn't belong to the lord which destroys all biblical credit of establishing God's omnipotence to this point. 1 cor 15 is pure prophecy if you read the entire chapter it is all future tense. It states in v. 50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom so if all men die we must be resurrected to receive it. If we have to wait until the 1st resurrection(post great tribulation, post abomination of desolation) to receive the kingdom then what kingdom could he possibly reign if no subjects live there? The only kingdom it's referencing is his dominion over sin and his power over the world. With Death still being much in play and no resurrection in sight it is easy to state he reigns a worldly kingdom now. Yet let's go a step further. If my opponent wishes to be so literal I ask what kingdom on earth is being ruled specifically? Not only that DEFINE kingdom? In rev 11:15 it states all kingdoms shall become his so how can this be true if some earthly kingdoms still ignore or do not recognize him as king? Let's review this as well: Rev: 4-9And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they LIVED and REIGNED with Christ a thousand years(How can his servants live so long if death is still relevant? Can there be a different type of death other than the literal death?). But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. You see Christ reigns 1000 years with his true servants(Once again has not come to pass). This is the first resurrection he must reign these 1000 years with his servants but how can they reign with him if they are in a physical body we already established you need a celestial body to live with him in 1 cor 15:40 and you need to make the first resurrection so how would that work if he established the literal kingdom in the first century? It can't be logical. The only way possible is for the kingdom to equate to his dominion and power not an established throne(The only way to support your theory is if we had celestial bodies in which we dont). The line of confusion is thin but it is easily understood if you do not over complicate topics such as this. As far as the thousand years equals to one day to him you have to use the calculation in good context seeing that the bible references days, weeks, years several times and cannot be literal thousands of years every time. If that was the case Noah would've been on the ark 40,000 years and christ would be resting 3,000 years but no man has outlived methuselah. Yet as far as "at hand" isn't a metric that can be measured. If it's stated an eternal being is not bound by time then it contradicts my opponents argument as well seeing that this eternal being is the one that gave us the scriptures that guide us what time specifically did at hand mean? 2 days, 2 months, 20 years? You simply cannot prove it. The keys were exactly as I stated the knowledge to enter the kingdom and pass it on(teach) to the others who were without hope. Of COURSE he utilized the keys(Taught) but he never reached the kingdom of the latter days because it has not arrived. Rev 21: 2 cites: And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband(Prophetic no holy city has descended). Why would he be shown a prophecy of a new kingdom if paul had already entered it? Why wouldn't John be admitted either? As far as John 18:36 goes my opponent only furthers my statement by acknowledging "my servants would fight" What servants? The angels? Of course his servants on earth were the disciples and one did fight in a lost cause. Yet if his angels fought it would be no fight it would be just that pure carnage(Ex 23:23 For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off. 2 chr 32:21And the Lord sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword. isa:37-36.Then the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses). Thus the kingdom(dominion/rule)has always been in existence(creation). Yet the kingdom that exists after the 1000 years, after prophecy fulfillment, after 1st century AD has not come into play your argument is completely assumptive with no historical evidence. If my opponent argues and states the kingdom has arrived then define "which" kingdom? My opponent is implicating otherwise to state his kingdom is here is not sufficient enough please I ask you to specify and that seems to be the issue of concern. I have stated the kingdoms I refer to. I await your reply.