The Kingdom of Jesus Christ was set up and established in the 1st Century

It seems to me that my opponent could have written the entirety of his last speech without even seeing my affirmatives. Sir, the job of the negative is to thoroughly examine the arguments made by the affirmative and to then explain why those arguments are not valid. You are in fact making affirmative speeches and ignoring the responsibility of the negative.I will let my prior affirmations stand as they are: I have cited perhaps fifty passages which deal with the first-century imminency of the kingdom, plus a few more from the AD 60's which plainly state that the kingdom is here. None of these have been touched, and I see no need in expanding them. My opponent may indeed notice them; if so, I will have no opportunity to respond anyway. Therefore, I shall reluctantly negate the affirmatives that my opponent has produced as his negations.*****My opponent says, "It is in fact impossible to pinpoint an exact start to the Kingdom, unless you count the creation of Adam and Eve as the start point."Why, sir, the "exact start" of the kingdom came somewhere between those fify or sixty imminently-prospective statements in the gospels (written about AD 30) and the plain declarations of Paul and John that they were in the kingdom (written in the AD 60's). I can further state that the kingdom was firmly fixed - established - at about 9:00 AM on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus, but "between 30 AD and 70 AD" suffices for the proposition.***** MadBiker states, "In reality there has always been a kingdom."I reply: there has NOT always been a kingdom ruled by Jesus Christ as stated in the proposition. Certainly not. And that is the kingdom of which we are speaking. There have been various earthly kingdoms - even Satan is implied to have a kingdom. And?*****MadBiker: "A large part of my argument is in fact that the Kingdom ash gone through may different stages."Reply: The kingdom of Jesus Christ may have gone through "different stages" since AD 33 when it was established, but my opponent is in fact implying that when Jesus Christ said, "The kingdom is nigh ... at hand", it was already here! He has now taken on the task of making all of the PROSPECTIVE statements in the gospels essentially meaningless from a different angle: first he said "at hand" and "nigh" and "shortly come to pass" might mean 1,880 years. Now he is in the business of saying that those words mean "already here, been here, already come to pass." No, sir, they do not mean that, either. Nor do they mean different stages. *****My opponent tries to speculate, "When did that thousand years start?"Reply: What thousand years? If "a thousand years is as one day with the Lord" (as you stated when you were worried about "shortly come to pass" and "at hand", then how long is a thousand years? Well, a thousand years would be .... literally, 365,000 days. Right? So that's (365,000 literal days) x (1,000 years/day with the Lord) = 365,000,000 years!Of course, Rev 20 is a highly figurative chapter in the midst of an apocalytic book - and, as I said earlier, my opponent contorts plain, literal statements into conformity with his peculiar views of prophesy. Central to these strange beliefs is the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse.May I point out that Rev 20 does not speak of any reign of Christ. Indeed it does not. It speaks of a special and peculiar reign of certain souls with Christ. John saw souls out of the body - not in the body. The text says they lived and reigned with Christ. There is a vast difference between "lived and reigned with Christ" and a millennial reign "of Christ". Dissect it:"They lived and reigned with Christ""They" - who?"Lived" - lived where? lived how?"Lived and reigned" - with whom, in what place? Did the living stop when the reigning stopped?Revelation 20: 1-6 does not even mention (1) a millennial reign of Christ, (2) the 2nd coming of Christ, (3) a bodily resurrection, (4) the throne of David, (5) Christ on earth, or (6) us. The passage mentions none of those things - yet my opponent must speculate a mixture of those things into it. The souls of the martyrs, those who were beheaded, lived and reigned with Christ. In what sense? Mark it: only those who were martyred for Jesus Christ entered into that thousand years, and if the thousand years is literal, then the beheading is literal - and that cuts my opponent, Charles T. Russell, and the Apostle John out of it.The truth is that Rev 20 refers to a spiritual or figurative resurrection - the resurrectin of a cause, not a body - and that is why John employed the unusual language, "This is the first resurrection." It is the same type of resurrection referenced in Ezekiel 37 when Ezekiel, exiled in Babylon with Israel, prophesied by vision Israel's return. Here Israel is represented as being in the grave of Babylonian captivity - yet they were a living people. Yet God said He opened their graves and caused them to live - in their restoration to their native land and religion. The same sort of terminology is employed in Isa 26: 13-19 with reference to wicked lords. THAT is the type of resurrection pictured in Revelation 20 - and none other. I should like for my opponent to explain Ezekiel 37:"The hand of Jehovah was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of Jehovah, and set me down in the midst of the valley; and it was full of bones. And he caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord Jehovah, thou knowest. Again he said unto me, Prophesy over these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of Jehovah. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah unto these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and, behold, an earthquake; and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I beheld, and, lo, there were sinews upon them, and flesh came up, and skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are clean cut off. Therefore prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, O my people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am Jehovah, when I have opened your graves, and caused you to come up out of your graves, O my people. And I will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your own land ..."Is that not a type of a resurrection? Is that not a resurrection of a cause? Are not many features of Ezekiel's prophesy very similar to John's vision in Rev 20?Now, I realize that I have branched off into the discussion of prophesy. Well, I figured I might as well: there's not much else to talk about when the affirmatives were never touched. It is apparent to me that my opponent's position on the original proposition is based solely upon erroneous views of prophesies: that is why he finds himself in the unenviable position of saying that Paul and John were never in the kingdom - when they plainly said they were! That's why he must reject 50 or 60 plain statements - not prophesies - but statements that announced the kingdom as imminent. Thank you, and I do appreciate my opponent's prompt responses.