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. Response: so it seems you have no clue you are simply guessing. I appreciate the efforts but is a futile effort if you cannot translate this into an absolute time frame. You become so literal you lose sight of the prophecies and the teachings the book was so beautifully written on. Could "at hand" mean anything of course it could yet if you cannot pinpoint an exact time you fail miserably with this attempt. ***** 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 afive-day period? His position"depends"upon a long shot, and in the Biblical depiction of the transfiguration, the kingdom is not even mentioned. Response: first, I have not nor will I mention "five days later". The kingdom they saw was simply a vision nothing more. Let's review v.1 " And he said unto them, verily I say unto you, that 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. Notice the word seen. Do you comprehend the word enter? Set foot? Arrive?" Why aren't these terms being used and why did he allow them this vision of the kingdom?" V.7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: Hear him Verse 8 states after this only Jesus and the few remained." Now my question to you the literalist, was there a group with Jesus initially? Did some of the group see the vision while others didn't? Did peter see this vision? Was the vision the kingdom? If so how can they see this kingdom you speak of if it was a vision and not of the spirit or in the heart as you say? It would be a vision of a manifestation or else they would not be able to see it. Feel it yes but see it no." ***** 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: Response: Your response here is meaningless as you do not infuse it with scriptures or evidence of what paul truly meant. You assume what it means and from there you have nothing but theory." ***** "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!" Response: This is why I asked you what version you used. KJV states Rev 1:6,9 "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever(Notice it never said kingdom). Amen. ... I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ(Notice how he said he was in the island of Patmos teaching). Your ASV text is the problem it seems. You are truly being misguided by using another man's belief of what the bible should say contradicting rev. 22:19 by changing the text. R06; 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. Response: Then what are you bound to? A completely different text flawed and unable to carry the original literature of the KJV. You have failed here as well. ***** 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? Response: Once the resurrection takes place there will be a waiting period of 1000 years of christ to establish his reign with his servants before he gives up the kingdom to rule with his father. Everyone will be resurrected at the first resurrection and some will obtain the celestial body those that do not "make the cut" will be left to prove their worthiness to gain entrance into the kingdom. Those who abide by God's word have no fear of the second death(Post first resurrection) in Rev. 2:11,20:6,21:8 Also notice Rev 20:5 on the dead bodies if you'd like. 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. Response: Your certainty is tainted and misguided by no fault of your own." You easily forgot Lazarus before you made that statement. Evidently there has been a resurrection beforehand. Not only that you have the resurrection of Christ which trumped all sacrifices. Don't rush before you respond or you contradict yourself too easily. Your credit here is being reduced to dribble with responses like these. 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? Response: I don't have to envision or believe it can happen because it already has...TWICE! You have the first example in the Garden of Eden. Did the animals co-exist? Was there killing pre-cain/abel? Secondly you have Noah's Ark. Have you forgotten God's power here when he turned the most vicious of beasts into herbivores?" I tell you again, Think and research before you respond your credibility is failing you. 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? Response: You say I rely too heavily on the figurative yet this is where you retreat to here with the animals. The Lion eating straw is also a sign of the times when israel will be gathered in their land(not the 1940 gathering too many contradictions). This is a sign that the lord has returned as well as the passage in Joel 2:28-32 seeing that when the Lord did come the first time it was not a terrible time but a wondrous time. The scripture cites:And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come.R06; My dear opponent has failed again with this response as in the first century Christ did not appear with blood moons and black sun's. He came a teacher, the great prophet, the true king, and the savior not the terror. I am shocked to see my opponent cite this scripture because it only further contradicts her.R06;" ***** "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. Response: You refuse to disappoint me. If what you state is true then that means the father would've already came. Let's look at the "Highly figurative" text in Rev. You seem to be fearful of. Rev 20:5,7 ""But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. ... And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,R06;" This also works perfectly for your earlier question on what happens to the dead after the resurrection. As you see here these 1000 years are the same but they also represent the defeat of satan and the reign of christ v.6 that must come to pass. Where you failed here is that if Christ did establish his kingdom in the 1st century or 2nd century between oh let's say 30-200 AD you must then ad in 1000 years from that time frame which means immediately after Christ's reign then the father would've came down around oh roughly 1200 AD 800 years ago and death would then be vanquished much like your credibility to this point. So I ask you this, if the kingdom was setup in that time frame, why hasn't the father descended? ***** "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! Response: "Penned" of course they penned the word and had received the word yet the word and the divine blessing of their knowledge was not the actual kingdom. ***** "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 "" Response: Show me that with scripture. ***** "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 laws haven't changed from OT to NT except the sacrificial law); 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. Response: Very close but still incorrect. The church(ministry) is the stairway and key to the kingdom. Not the Kingdom itself. Also you state the territory is within our hearts and that would mean our devotion and faith but if that is true you contradict yourself the fifth time in your response with this statement. If that rings true then the vision Christ showed peter was the essence of a christian and the devotion Christians have." ***** "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. Response: I have little to no disagreement with you here on his death the timing is roughly accurate as far as death but that does not mean the kingdom came to existence after he rose. Only that the ministry began to spread and grow giving all the chance at salvation and access to the kingdom. I use the entire bible for my discussion to exclude apocalyptic scriptures in a discussion on the kingdom is to read a story almost completely to the end. I have no quarrels going between the testaments and scriptures deciphering what need be cited. If my opponent fears to do so or just voluntarily refuses she has every right to." ***** I would like to thank my opponent and applaud her skills in debating and for a great showing in this debate,the valor she has displayed, and the formal nature in which the debate here is executed she has been a marvelous teacher in that regard. I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion and look forward to the final round. "