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

1. Jesus's first mission was a failure as far as setting up His intended kingdom. 2. Old pagan Rome will resuscitate and again rule the world. 3. Somehow, nonhuman life forms will breed with humans. 4. Jesus will return to try to get it right this time. See what I mean by silly speculations? Your position entails a mass "conversion on demand" of the Jews, somehow - even though they did a nice job of rejecting Jesus the first time. *** "The facts are that Christ told his disciples that they would see it(Matthew 16:28), that this kingdom would come with power" Yes, He did. Did it come true as He stated, or did He screw up on that one as well? "... there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9: 1) Well, that makes sense because the kingdom was "at hand", "near" or "nigh" (Lk 10: 9), and anticipated (Mk 15: 43). It was thus so because "the time is fulfilled." Of course, the "power" came on the Day of Pentecost: "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem". (Acts 1: 8). And the kingdom, the church, came on the same day. *** "They did not get it wrong. Failure and postponement ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS." Sure they are, but when a time-element is involved, any postponement IS a failure. It's not the ONLY form of failure, but it is a failure nonetheless. Your position is: 1. that Jesus knew aforetime that the Jews would crucify Him. (And He did) 2. Jesus knew that His own people would reject Him (And He did) 3. Jesus went right ahead and, along with John, announced the kingdom was "at hand", knowing all the time that it wasn't. (That's unbelievable) *** "The Old Testament never said that Jesus would set up the kingdom in the first century, thus Jesus can postpone his it and the prophecy doesn't fail." "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Dan 2: 44) You've already said that "those kings" refers to the Roman emperors. LOL @ "in the first century". Daniel DID say that the kingdom would be established in the days of the 4th worldwide kingdom, the Roman Empire. Well, the Roman Empire has come and gone. And, simply to make things fit, you have to assert that Rome will once again rule the world. "And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1: 15) WHAT time is fulfilled? Huh? The TIME spoken of by the prophets, including Daniel and Isaiah, relating to the establishment of the kingdom! *** "IT NEEDS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT Jesus came ORIGINALLY ONLY FOR THE JEWS(Matthew 10:5-7). NONE OF THE GENTILES WERE TO BE SAVED." Yeah, I saw it - and merely denied it because it wasn't the main issue. "And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Gen 26: 4). Certainly this is a Messianic prophesy, and I've never heard of a Christian commentator who said anything other than "all the nations" refers to both Jews and Gentiles. So the inclusion of the Gentiles was in the grand scheme after all. "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery ... which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power... 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) There was a mystery that had not been made known (and my opponent still doesn't know it). Here it is (v. 6): "that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body ...) That mystery had been hid in God from the beginning. Thus Paul is explaining in Eph 3 then promise to Abraham in Gen 26. *** "But when they stoned Stephen in Acts 7 God was done with the Jews as a nation." Of course, that is merely your assertion, for what it's worth. God was "done with Israel" when Israel committed a national sin by crucifying the Son of God - not because a few of them threw rocks and killed Stephen. *** "Christ is not currently reigning over his kingdom right now, THE DEVIL IS." You mean to tell us (and "us" includes the atheists that might read this) that the best a premillennialist can do is say that the first coming of Christ was, pretty much, a flop - and we now have a make-shift kingdom with no king? Is that it? Did the Son of God descend to this footstool and accomplish what He set out to do? Premillennialists fudge and squirm and wiggle and, the best I can tell, say, "No". But listen to Jesus: " I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Jesus: "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." Had Jesus been a premillennialist, He would have said, "Well, I have finished maybe some of the work, but those pesky duck-legged Jews made me pigeon-hole the rest of it." *** "I would like to remind Con that the Devil wasn't tied and bound(figuratively or literally) after the Cross." And I would like to remind Pro that I do not need reminding of a mere assertion because, as Pro knows, I believe Satan was indeed bound. *** "Furthermore, the disciples asked Christ just before His Ascension if he would now restore the kingdom to Israel(Acts 1:6)." That simply shows that the disciples continued to make the same mistake that you do, only they had more of an excuse. I can't top this: (1) the Jews expected, anticipated, and longed-for an earthly kingdom just as premillennialists do, (2) Jesus came to give them exactly what they wanted, as far as the kingdom goes, (3) They crucified Him and prevented Him from doing exactly what they wanted in the first place, so (4) He'll try again at some point and maybe have better luck unless they reject Him again. *** "Yes it is the Roman Empire, but its a Revived Roman Empire thats still future." More speculation! Pagan Rome must once again sway its sceptre of authority over the world, or else your little system is thrown all out of whack. *** "Further, God has done a lousy job of reigning over this world if he's the king right now. Wouldn't you have to agree, Con?" Absolutely I would not. *** "then explain Matthew 10:5-6 which says" Why, no one denies that the gospel was to be preached to the Jews first. The problem is: you deny that it was ever intended for Gentiles. See Eph 3. *** "Peter has to make it figurative." No, it (Joel 2) was obviously figurative to start with: Peter didn't "make it" that way. Here's your problem on the passage: Peter EXPLAINED it with an inspired commentary, and his explanation proves that it was figurative. You, on the other hand, simply deny his explanation , assert that none of it occurred, and press forward with your theories.