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

I repeat: when a prophecy has a time-element, such as 1. God says through inspiration that a certain thing WILL happen, then 2. God says that this event WILL occur within a certain time frame, and the time-frame comes and goes with nada happening, such represents an overall failure of the prophecy and reflects poorly upon the veracity of prophecy in general. Skeptics, atheists, and infidels would have a field day with such a position, yet my opponent clings tenaciously to it. Hear him: Pro: "Christ is not currently reigning over his kingdom right now, THE DEVIL IS." "Who hath delivered us ... and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son ... " A kingdom - but no king. Pro: "God has done a lousy job of reigning over this world if he's the king right now." " And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Pro: ""They did not get it wrong. Failure and postponement ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS." A failure might not be due to postponement, but an imaginary postponement = failure. Pro: "Yes it is the Roman Empire, but its a Revived Roman Empire thats still future." Methinks you are making that one up. Pro: "It says in verse 43 that they, "mingle themselves WITH THE SEED OF MEN." This implies that they are not human if they are mingling with man's seed." Best I can tell, if pro is correct, we have no kingdom of heaven now, no king now, no reign now. The statements of Daniel, Isaiah, John, and Jesus failed so far as the time element goes. We have to wait for pagan Rome, Roman emperors, Roman rule of the earth, then non-human life forms will breed with humans. Then the Jews will mass convert, somehow - without explanation. Then Jesus will sit over there in Palestine and rule for exactly 1,000 years. And that's a legitimate theological system? All it's good for is providing fodder and comedy relief for skeptics and infidels. It all boils down to this: one kingdom was envisioned by God; one kingdom was prophesied by Daniel and Isaiah and others; one kingdom was heralded by John, then Jesus. After Acts 2, the Colossians were in the kingdom. John was in the kingdom. The kingdom existed. In order to satisfy the demands of his speculative system, my opponent must INVENT another one that was never prophesied nor promised - a vague "spiritual" kingdom as opposed to a literal, earthly kingdom. He says "one came, one didn't" - as if there were ever two to start with. *** "Jesus doesn't have to try to convert the Jews, they will convert after the tribulation." Whatever your position on it - millennialists have a dozen - your theories call for an inexplicable, miraculous conversion of the Jews, which amounts to a complete setting-aside of the gospel plan of salvation. You can't explain what will cause this conversion. *** "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." Good grief. You think that refers to a future tribulation? That passage wasn't written, technically, after the crucificion, and you know it. That passage is a quote from Jeremiah 31: 31-34, and, as Dr. Barnes says, "There can be no doubt that as it is used by Jeremiah it refers to the times of the gospel." The passage from Jeremiah is used by the writer of Hebrews to picture the superiority of the gospel system of Christianity over the Jewish economy. *** "And yet you have provided no verse to prove the Kingdom of Heaven is the church. They had power to be witnesses, NOT kings." ^ ^ ^ ^ quibble. "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever." (Rev 1: 6) *** "It's just God's way of doing things." That's my opponent's ultimate explanation. Mass Jewish conversion? Non-humans breeding or mingling with humans? Pagan Rome returning? He knows how it looks, so he writes it off as "just God's way." "God's way" is to promise, prophesy, and herald an event as "at hand" - near, close, imminent - then just never do it? *** "First off, you didn't answer A SINGLE QUESTION I BROUGHT UP ABOUT THAT VERSE NOT REFERING TO ROME IN THE FIRST CENTURY." I stated that "the time is fulfilled, the kingdom is at hand" and asked you WHAT was fulfilled? *** "The Church was plan B, it was the result of the Jews rejection of Christ." "that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God ... to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord " (Eph 3) I mentioned Eph 3 two or three times already. No response. The church is not and was not a contingent, an accident, an after-thought, a stop-gap measure or any of the other semi-deragotory terms, such as Plan B, that millennialists so frequently apply to it. *** "Which shows that Gentiles are Plan B if it was for the Jews first!" Eph 3. I suppose you will eventually notice the passage when I have no opportunity to rebut. *** "Well, but the events of Joel 2 WILL BE FULFILLED LITERALLY. " Who said so? YOU? If so, the Apostle Peter was a little better prophesy-interpretter. He said, "THIS ... THIS ... THIS is THAT which was spoken by Joel". You give us a quibble about Yankees versus Dixie, and simply assert that Joel 2 has never been fulfilled at all. *** "You say that without examining my reasoning." My denial is worth as much as your assertion. You HAD no reasoning. "People kill people; therefore, the reign of Christ is yet future." <-- Is that it? *** "Satan being the king MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE." Amazing. You say, without a blush, the Satan is the king. We are in a kingdom but we have no king? In whatever sense Christ is king today, according to you, it seems that millennialists think He is the most impotent king that ever existed. *** Rom 16: 20 " And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." So what? You say, "This proves Satan isn't through with yet." Well, that's a reference to Gen 3: 15: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." All it means it that God, the God of peace, will providentially subdue elements of contention or discord in the early church. See the word "shortly" in there? Of course, you think that word means 2,000+ years and counting, but it doesn't. *** "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)" He already HAD: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." And what do you say? You say His kingdom is MOST DEFINATELY of this world - right over there in Palestine, in Jerusalem, on the earthly throne of David, and His servants will fight battles. *** Con: Jesus: "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." Pro: "He accomplished the work of telling the Jews to accept Him as the Messiah." Umm ... that's not all He came to do, was it? He came to establish a literal, earthly reign - and did not do it. Hence, you deny that He "finished the work that the Father gave Him to do." He did a little of it, but certainly didn't finish it. There's no way to quibble out of that, either. Take note, atheists!