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

I shall continue my introductory affirmative by demonstrating that after Pentecost, disciples of Jesus Christ were in the kingdom. By way of introduction, one will recall that Peter, in relating the conversion of Cornelius, said, "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning." (Acts 11: 15)I drop the question: the beginning of what? No doubt Peter refers to the descent of the Spirit on Pentecost, and note that he calls Pentecost "the beginning." Exactly what "began" then? Something did.The Apostle Paul in writing to the Colossians about 62 AD states,"Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." (Col 1: 12, 13)Thirty years after Pentecost, the peerless apostle to the Gentiles was thankful that God the Father had translated (from methistemi , G3179: to transpose or transfer1) "us" - himself and his readers - "into the kingdom of His dear Son." What could be plainer? Paul and the Colossians were translated or tranferred into the Jesus Christ's kingdom at some point in the past, and that point would coincide with when they were "delivered from the power of darkness", i. e. saved. One would just as well affirm that there was no power of darkness at the time as to assert that there was no kigndom; thus, I shall submit for consideration that "delivered from the power of darkness" is simply flowery language for "being saved" as in Acts 2: 47:"And the Lord added to them (to the church, KJV) day by day those that were saved." Further, John when writing the Apocalypse stated in the prologue,"John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits that are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever." (Rev 1: 4-6) "I John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." (Rev 1: 9) Some translations use the word "companion" in place of "partaker" - and the word, sygkoinonos, simply means "joint participant"; thus, John and his readers were in the tribulation, in the kingdom right then - just as Paul and the Colossians were.Friends, there are over sixty (I stopped counting) references in the four gospels (prior to Pentecost) to the imminency of the kingdom. The kingdom of Jesus Christ - and the imminent nature of it - was the paramount subject of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Indeed, He preached "the gospel of the kingdom" (Mark 1: 14). Practically all of His teaching was with a view forward to His kingdom. After His ascension, His kingdom was established! Paul was in it; the Colossians were in it; John was in it; the readers of Revelation were in it. What could be plainer?I ask my opponent: were Paul and John and the Colossians and the first-century readers of Revelation in the kingdom? If you think not, then how were Paul and the Colossians transferred into the kingdom - yet were not in the kingdom. The same applies to John and his readers. ***** He muses, "Does my opponent not trust her readers to be able to check for themselves?"Answer: Able? Of course they are able. 'Twas a matter of convenience - not ability - for the reader.***** He attempts to set the stage for his prophetic speculations by citing II Pet 3: 8, which is a re-statement of Psalm 90: 4, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years." He adds this is "important verses to keep in mind when looking at bible chronology."Answer: Then how can you have any such thing as "chronology"? It seems to me that you flip from "time means nothing" to "time means everything" to suit your fancy. The truth is that the passage is merely a metaphorical description of the patience of God - not an excuse to evade and eliminate plain, didactic statements which contain a time element. Has it occurred to anyone that if a prophesy contains a time element (most of them do not), and if this time element is not met, then the prophesy simply fails? My opponent appears to believe in a literal 1,000-year reign. If "at hand" and "nigh unto you" and "shortly come to pass" can be contorted to mean 1,800 years, then why couldn't your 1,000-year reign mean perhaps 100,000 years? *****My opponent states, "it (the kingdom) was always to be established a step at a time, as God's answer to Satan's challenge progressed."Nobody denies that. And that is just how it happened. The kingdom - God's means of reconciliation - was purposed by God for millenia. That does not prove that the kingdom is yet future.*****That answers most of his remarks, so I shall introduce my opponent's favorite subject: prophesy. Take a look at II Samuel 7: 12-13 as God makes a covenant with David through Nathan."When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son ..." Here the "seed of David" is connected with this then-prophetic kingdom: the kingdom was promised to this "seed." Note that the "house for my name" and "His kingdom" are connected - and Paul later says, "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." At any rate, while David sleeps with his fathers, God will establish the Seed of David's kingdom. Where is David now? I Kings 2: 10 states, "And David slept with his fathers", and the fact of the matter is that David is STILL asleep with his fathers. Acts 2 refers to this fact:"the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption."See the bolded part? Peter is referring right back to II Sam 7. When would this promised kingdom be set up? Get it: while David slept with his fathers. If someone were to teach that the kingdom was set up prior to David's death, he would be in conflict with II Sam 7. If someone were to teach that the kingdom is to be set up at the resurrection, he would be in just as much conflict with II Sam. The kingdom was to be set up and established while David was "asleep". MadCornish, where is David now? Is he still "asleep? If not, when did he awaken? He was supposed to be "asleep" when this "kingdom of David's seed" was set up, so could you elaborate a little on any supposed condition of David prior to and after 1914?It will be my opponent's job to negate my arguments on the imminent nature of the kingdom in the four gospels, my assertion that the rule and reign of Christ from heaven on David's throne began at the ascension - with the kingdom beginning on Pentecost, and my assertion that, after Pentecost, men such as Paul and John were in the kingdom. Accompanying these assertions are perhaps ten or so questions for the consideration of my opponent and readers.I did notice that, for some reason, the original terms (5 rounds, 8000 characters, 48-hr response times) reverted to default. Three rounds are hardly enough to develop thorough arguments on either side, especially the negative. 1 http://www.blueletterbible.org... 2 http://www.blueletterbible.org...