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

Definition of TermsKingdom: an organization, either temporal or spiritual, governed by a reigning monarchOf Jesus Christ: that is, inaugurated, belonging to, and ruled by Jesus ChristBrought into Existence: established, set up, firmly fixedFirst Century A. D.: the first one hundred years after the birth of Christ as typically reckoned, A. D. 1 through A. D. 100 What is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ? The true nature of the promised kingdom of the Messiah was contrary to the expectations of the Jews. As it turned out, the kingdom of Christ was to be in the world, but not of the world. Far from being an outward affair, its territory was to be the human heart and mind. Its warfare was to be spiritual, not carnal. It was to conquer by the gospel, not the sword. Its citizens were to be willing citizens, not vanquished subjects. It is engaged in constant warfare, but the war is of persuasion. At the end of time, on that last great day when the last enemy, death, is destroyed, the glorious kingdom of Christ will be presented to the Father. Does Jesus Christ reign today? Of course He does! He reigns in the hearts and minds of men. It will evolve upon my opponent to give some sort of description of the kingdom, and I surmise that he will inform us that Jesus Christ presently is not reigning, is not on His throne, and has no kingdom at all! We shall see. Place Your Bets What to watch for: these debates with the 1,000-year-reign folks are always interesting for we already know that they will place their speculative interpretations of certain highly figurative prophesies on a pedestal, and if these speculations (which usually involve literalizing very flowery, figurative, poetic language) conflict with very plain, very didactic statements that nobody could misunderstand, they will cling tenaciously to their prophetic guesses and seek to undermine plain statements. Watch and see! Such a manner of exegesis, in my opinion, is haphazard at best. We shall see what path he follows. The Imminence of the Kingdom in the First Century I am affirming the first-century imminency of the kingdom. I affirm that EVERY MENTION of a time-factor and the kingdom of Jesus Christ implies the imminence, the nearness, the closeness of its appearing. 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). First, note the proclamations of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ: Matt 3: 1, 2: "… John the Baptist came, preaching … saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near"." (KJV: "at hand") Matthew 4:17: "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mark 1: 14, 15: "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Question #1: WHAT time was fulfilled? I'll submit that Jesus hearkened right back to Daniel's prophecy in Dan 2 (and other prophesies) and emphatically stated, "The 'TIME' is 'fulfilled'." I again ask my opponent, “WHAT … time … was … fulfilled?” I would like to see a thorough answer to that. According to Daniel's interpretation in Dan 2, have the following: Thus, the promised kingdom was to arrive at some point between 30BC and 397AD. Christ was saying the kingdom is "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom is at hand" in about 30AD. My opponent speculates, to accommodate his prophetic theories, that the kingdom which was "near" and "at hand" in about 30AD has not shown up for 1,884 years, even though the time was fulfilled way back yonder! Why is that? Do "near", "nigh", and "at hand" mean 1884+ years, by any stretch? The phrase “at hand” is translated from a form of eggys which means imminent and soon to come to pass (with reference to time) and near or nigh (with reference to place).1 ******** Then again, 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." SOME of those people to whom Jesus was speaking were to see -to visualize - the arrival of the promised kingdom before they "tasted death." If Jesus told the truth, where are these folks today? They’re all dead – and as per my opponent, they all died without seeing the promised kingdom. 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? Another thing: the kingdom was to come when the power came. Note Luke 24: 49, "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry you in the city of Jerusalem, until you are endued with power from on high." So the disciples would be in Jerusalem when the power came, and when the power came, the kingdom would come. And again: Acts 1: 8, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." Thus, the coming of power was synonymous with the coming of the Spirit, and it would all happen in Jerusalem. Pentecost Now observe Acts 2: 1. Where? Jerusalem ("Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.) 2. When? During the days of the Roman Empire when the power came 3. Who? The disciples and apostles to whom Jesus said, "shall not taste death" 4. What happened? "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." There’s the Spirit, and there’s the power. 5. What did Peter say about it? THIS - what you are seeing ... THIS - what you are hearing - is THAT which Joel prophesied. Peter said, "This is that." My opponent will most likely say, "No, it wasn’t." We shall see. Were the events of Acts 2 the fulfillment of Joel 2? Thus, we have this situation concerning the imminent appearance of the kingdom: 1. To come in the days of the Roman Emperors 2. The time was fulfilled - it was near 3. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by John 4. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by Jesus 5. Preached as "at hand" by the twelve disciples (Matt 10: 7, Luke 9: 2) 6. Preached as "nigh unto you" by the seventy (Luke 10: 9) 7. Awaited by Joseph of Arimethea (Mark 15: 43) 8. Disciples were to pray for it (Matt 6: 10) 9. Would appear before some standing with the Lord would die 10. Would come with power, power would come with the Spirit 11. Would all occur in Jerusalem 12. Peter was granted the keys to it Alright, the Spirit came on Pentecost. The power came on Pentecost. They were in Jerusalem. Peter had the keys. Some would not taste death til it came. It had been "at hand". Now comes a modernist and says, "Why, the kingdom that was prophesied and heralded has not yet appeared!" Pffffffft. A few questions: Awriternamedred, why don’t you tell us what the word eggys as used in, say, Matt 4: 17 means to you? What did the statement, "The kingdom is at hand" mean to first-century hearers? Does the word eggys mean imminent, soon to come to pass? Do you simply stand up and imply that John, Jesus, the Twelve, the Seventy and everyone else misled everyone? Were John, Jesus, the Twelve, and the Seventy all misled? Did Paul state that he was in the kingdom in Col 1: 13? Did John state that he was in the kingdom in Rev 1: 9? Did Paul state that the Colossian Christians were in the kingdom in Col 1: 13? If (1) John, Jesus, the Twelve, and the Seventy unanimously stated that the kingdom was “soon to come to pass”, then (2) Paul and John stated that they were in the kingdom, (3) what possesses someone to determine that the kingdom really was not soon to come to pass, and Paul and John were not really, literally in the kingdom? No, the Apostle Peter possessed the keys to the kingdom. Did he use them yet? I wonder. Has Peter possessed the keys to the kingdom for nearly 2,000 years without ever using them? I say he inserted that first key on Pentecost and thus opened the doors of the kingdom to the Jews. About seven years later, he inserted the other key and opened the door to Cornelius and thus the Gentiles. I actually do not know what my opponent's thoughts are on this subject, but I know they will be governed by his speculations on prophesy. That’s all this will amount to: multiple plain, didactic statements versus prophetic speculations. Every millennialist must, absolutely must, become a professional prophesy-interpreter – and every last one of them will deny dozens of literal statements in order to continue speculating. Watch and see. I implore the reader to observe that when Paul plainly says, “I am in the kingdom”, my opponent will, in the end, say “No, you weren’t.” When Jesus, the nobleman in Luke 19, is described as going away to receive a kingdom, will my opponent inform us that He is coming back to establish it? I think so. I will make a quick comment on I Pet 2: 9, "But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" with emphasis on the word basileion (translated royal) which carries the meaning of "kingly, belonging to a king".2 Thus Christians are described as a "belonging to a king" priesthood - but as per my opponent we have no reigning king! We are a royal priesthood - without the royalty. Most premillennialists conjecture that Jesus Christ is a mere crown prince currently. I will pause so that my opponent can deny these affirmations and deal with the questions that were posed (not all of them – only the ones in red). 1 http://biblehub.com...... 2 http://www.biblestudytools.com......