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

** I forgot one other request. When citing passages, please insert the passage for convenience (so that readers will not to look it up). The Imminence of the Kingdom in the First Century Before getting to the heart of the debate, I shall use these introductory remarks for one purpose: to affirm 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.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. My opponent speculates, to accommodate his prophetic theories, that the kingdom which was "near" and "at hand" in about 30AD didn't show up for 1,884 years, even though the time was fulfilled way back yonder? Why is that? Do "near", "nigh", and "at hand" mean 1832 years? A better query: do those phrases mean ANYTHING?******** 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." The implication is that some would die prior to it. If Jesus told the truth, where were these folks in 1914? They were all dead. 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.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 came3. Who? The disciples and apostles to whom Jesus said, "shall not tastedeath"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 - whatyou are hearing - is THAT which Joel prophesied.Peter said, "This is that." My opponent will most likely say, "No, itwasn"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 Emperors2. The time was fulfilled - it was near3. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by John4. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by Jesus5. 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 die10. Would come with power, power would come with the Spirit11. Would all occur in JerusalemAlright, 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 MadCornish and says, "Why, the kingdom that was prophesied and heralded came in 1914!" Pffft. My opponent’s position in the forum has been, strangely, that terms such “at hand” and “near” and “nigh” mean definite and certain. Oh, no, they don’t! The event was certain with or without the “at hand” and “nigh”. A statement like that is nothing but a misleading dodge – and reduces the meaning of the words to nothing. 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).1The word is never translated certainly or definitely. Notice how silly, how meaningless, such a contention becomes: Matt 21: 1 Bible: “And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem …” MCB: “And when they drew certainly unto Jerusalem …” Mark 14: 42 Bible: “he that betrayeth me is at hand.” MCB: “he that betrayeth me is certain” A few questions: MCB, 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 ALL unanimously stated that the kingdom was “soon to come to pass”, then (2) Paul and John stated that they were in the kingdom, (3) BY WHAT METHODOLOGY did you determine that the kingdom really was not soon to come to pass, and Paul and John were not really, literally in the kingdom? Do you honestly think that “a thousand years with the Lord is as one day” is an above-board explanation for the dozens of plain statements that the kingdom was “near’ and “at hand” in the first century? I stress that my opponent’s position is reduced to this: He does not deny what John, Jesus, the Twelve, and the Seventy preached regarding “The kingdom is at hand.” No, he knows what they said – and what they meant. He knows that their tens of thousands of listeners and followers understood them to be telling them, “The promised kingdom is soon approaching, near, at hand, nigh, close – just around the corner.” In fact, the imminence of the kingdom was referenced as an inducement for them to REPENT. His position – solely due to his prophetic speculations – is: “Bazinga! Another classic practical joke. You didn’t realize that ‘a day is as a thousand years with the Lord’. You shoulda kept that in mind! Gotcha! You fell for it! The kingdom ain’t gonna be here for 1,800 years or so. All those 'at hands' and 'nighs' really meant ... ummm .... nothing!” Any doctrine that drives one to such extremes cannot possibly be true, but when the dust settles, watch and see: that's what he'll say.No, the Apostle Peter possessed the keys to the kingdom. Did he use them yet? 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. 1 http://biblesuite.com...