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

“Did they say it was at hand? But of course, yet as I stated before at hand could be tomorrow, could be next week could be next year or next century. "At hand" is too vague to pinpoint and settle on so you have to go by the signs and which ones have come to pass and which havent.” Of course “at hand” is somewhat vague. So are “near” and “shortly come to pass”. The word translated “at hand” in Matt 4: 17 is eggizo, a form of eggys, which is defined as “of times imminent and soon to come pass.”1 Sure it could mean tomorrow, the next week, the next year, or the next decade. The question is whether such a word would have been repeatedly used to refer to an event two thousand-plus years into the future. There is no such use of the word – either in the Bible, or out of it. ***** Question: Jesus said in Mark 9: 1, "... some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." It won't do to assert that they kinda-sorta caught a winking glimpse of the kingdom at the transfiguration or ascension, yet that is the usual dodge that these guys make. If so, why were they still expectant of the kingdom after at least the transfiguration? Opponent’s Answer: “This is the vision they saw. Keep in mind it was a vision not an entering of the kingdom. This is how "some" people saw the kingdom.” Remarks: Well, he cited the transfiguration scene, and implied that the “saw” the kingdom come in a vision; thus, they “saw” it come – but it didn’t really come! The word translated “see” in Mark 9: 1 is eido, and it is usually translated “perceive” or “know”2 – in fact, “perceive” is a 10 to 1 more likely translation. My opponent must claim that three people “perceived it” five days later! Jesus said that some would live to see the coming of the kingdom. This implies that some would not. Does my opponent really think that two or more in the audience died within a five-day period? His position depends upon a long shot, and in the Biblical depiction of the transfiguration, the kingdom is not even mentioned. ***** Regarding Col 1: 13, he says, “He didn't say he entered the kingdom here either the text varies by versions you use so you must be careful deciphering the scriptures like this.” Paul said he and the Colossians were in it, but you think they didn’t enter it? You then proceed to question the translation in the KJV and ASV. The word is basileian, and I unaware of Greek textual variations of it. You certainly gave no such example – and I doubt that you will. The word means “a kingdom, the territory subject to the rule of a king, royal power, kingship, dominion”3 Unfortunately, it boils down to this: Paul said, “I have been translated into the kingdom” Awriternamedred says, “He didn’t say he entered the kingdom” And it doesn’t get any better: ***** “Rev 1:9 John is simply speaking as the brother and teacher of the word nothing more” John said in Rev 1: 6, “and he made us to be a kingdom”, then follows in verse 9 with, “I John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus.” John said plainly that he and the first readers of Revelation were in the kingdom. My opponent says, “No, you weren’t!” On these questions, the reason that my opponent has no plausible answer is not due to lack of ability. My opponent would not resort to “He was translated into the kingdom, but he didn’t say he entered it.” He is bound by false theories and really can’t say much of anything else. ***** Based upon I Cor 15, is the hour in which all in their graves hear His voice and come forth synonymous with the destruction of the last enemy, death? My opponent says, “No.” John 5, on which the question is also partially based, says, “Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.” I Cor 15 says, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.” My opponent is in the precarious position of claiming that when “all in their tombs hear His voice and come forth”, death is still not destroyed. Every last person is resurrected, yet death is not destroyed? Do you think these resurrected beings will still die? I repeat: there is but one literal, bodily resurrection. You have had to make up two solely to force conformation to your theories on Revelation. That is the only place you could get such a doctrine. I want to get to his questions: ***** “Does the lion eat straw to this day? Or will the lion eat flesh?” The lion eats flesh now – and the lion will eat flesh until the end of time. Do you honestly think that the 2nd coming of Christ will miraculously alter the GI system of a true carnivore into that of a herbivore? Do you seriously envision a time when lions and tigers will graze out in the pasture with cattle and horses? Piranhas will stop attacking other fish? and Venus fly traps will cease eating insects? Snakes will get their nourishment from dust? And you exclaim that if this is figurative, why, then Isaiah is just discredited! All it amounts to is that Isaiah foresaw the gospel age, a time in which both Jew and Gentile were reconciled to God on the same terms - a time during which all men are one in Christ. The lamb isnt a literal lamb that goes "Baaaa" any more than the lion is a literal felid with a mane, claws, and fangs. The "lamb" is, broadly, the people of God; the "lion" is, broadly, their former enemies. The "discrediting", we will find, is by literalists. For instance, Peter said on Pentecost that "this is that spoken by Joel", and he referenced Joel 2: 28-32. Take a look at that passage. Will my opponent affirm that Joel 2: 28-32 was fulfilled at least in the first century? Not all on Pentecost - just in the first century? ***** “If the Kingdom has come then when exactly did the apocalypse take place?” It took place in the 1st and 2nd centuries as the church endured through waves of persecutions at the hands of both the Jews and the Romans and emerged victorious. An apocalypse always, always, always depicts a downtrodden, persecuted cause which ultimately emerges victorious over its oppressors. Thus, every apocalypse is a message of hope which concludes with the victory of a certain people or cause. ***** “If the 1000 years of peace has passed then why hasn't the father descended? Why aren't we celestial if we are in the kingdom.” There is no such phrase as “thousand years of peace” in the entire Bible. The thousand years is no more literal than the key, bottomless pit, dragon or the rest of the vision. Also, one does not need to be “celestial” to be in the kingdom of God. Was Paul "celestial" when he penned Colossians? Was John "celestial" when he penned Revelation? Of course not! ***** “Who made the first resurrection if it already came to pass and if it has why are we still living and dying?” The “first resurrection”, which is mentioned nowhere other than apocalyptic literature, is the rejuvenation – the reanimating – of a righteous, holy cause such as actually happened when Christianity triumphed overs its Jewish and Roman persecutors. As far as the literal, bodily resurrection of all the dead persons, it has not occurred. I have said since my first statement that you will deny or contort plain statements surrounded by very literal language (which you have done) in order to appeal to very figurative language. ***** “Define the kingdom either it is spiritual, heavenly, or physical.” I have defined it several times, but apparently that’s not good enough. A kingdom cannot exist without a king, subjects, laws, and territory. The King is Jesus Christ; we are His subjects; the laws are contained in the NT; the territory is the human heart. Thus, the kingdom of Jesus Christ is a spiritual kingdom with a specific type of government, a monarchy, inaugurated by Jesus after His ascension into heaven. Its subjects are spirits – no matter where those spirits may reside, whether in bodies on earth or in the Hadean realsm. The kingdom of Christ is synonymous with the church of Christ. ***** “I rebut and ask you again when did this kingdom come exactly? Not a rough estimate give me a year exactly. If you cannot do that then you have no further argument/evidence to back up your claim that you say it has already passed.” Whether I could give you an exact date or not is irrelevant, and you are setting up a false criterion. However, I’ll answer it and return the favor: the kingdom was established on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ at about 9 AM. Most scholars, I would think, place this in the year 33 AD. A similar chart was posted in the first affirmative: That should be close enough for you, but in case it is not, you tell us in exactly what year Jesus Christ was crucified – or else we’ll just conclude that it never happened. I concede that I do not know with absolute certainty when Christ was crucified, but the point is that you do not know either. ***** I would like to point out that of my opponent's questions, four of the five come directly from the Book of Revelation - yet he claims that he does not run to apocalytpic language for his eschatology! My opponent teaches two literal, bodily resurrections separated by a large span of time. The Bible teaches no such thing! To "prove" it, he will run to .... apocalytic literature. High figures. Heavy symbolism. Then he'll deny plain statements elsewhere. I will pause to give my opponent a chance to respond. Thank you. 1 http://www.blueletterbible.org... 2 http://www.blueletterbible.org... 3 http://www.blueletterbible.org...