The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Bible teaches that the kingdom of God has been established and exists on earth now."

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,474 times Debate No: 25737
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




The entire proposition states: "The Bible teaches that the kingdom of God as prophesied has been established and exists on earth now."

1. The standard for proof is the Bible and the Bible alone. No other sources are mentioned in the proposition, nor are they acceptable as proof. Other sources may be cited as ancillary evidence.

2. References to Hebrew/English lexicons, Greek/English lexicons, Greek dictionaries, etc are permitted, of course, for explanations of Greek or Hebrew words or idioms.

Definitions of terms:

1. "Kingdom" as used in Dan 2 and throughout the NT. Kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven are viewed as synonymous.
2. "Bible" - the 66 books of the Bible, and a standard translation thereof
3. "Teaches" - conveys the thought by direct statement or necessary implication
4. "As prophesied" - as predicted regarding the fact and the time of it
5. "Established" - was set up, built, firmly fixed

Alright. First round acceptance/clarification of terms only. And look, Scotty! I even have it fixed to where you get the last word. You'll have four rounds to prove to everyone's satisfaction that the kingdom has not come yet.


I agree with everything my opponent has defined in her first round. I would just like to add two more definitions myself. They are:


To have actual being; to be.


at the present time or moment.

I hope my opponent approves of these definitions.

To elaberate further, our debate is focused and centered around this statement by our definitions:

-The Bible teaches that the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven has been set-up to have actual being on earth at the present time.-

I have no further guidelines myself and hope my opponent agrees here. I send it back to her and I wait her argument.

GL, AnnaNicole! Back to Pro~

Debate Round No. 1


The proposition is: "The Bible teaches that the kingdom of God as prophesied has been established and exists on earth now."

That the kingdom of God was prophesied, I take it, my opponent will not deny, and I cite Dan 2: 44:

"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."

One may note (1) a certain time-element to this prophesy "in the days of those kings" as well as (2) the event "shall " set up a kingdom." So the question becomes, "Who are "those kings"?"

In Daniel 2, I presume that no one will deny the following order in fulfillment, although the dates are approximate:

1. The Head of Gold: the Babylonian Empire (606BC - 536BC)
2. The Breastplate of Silver: the MedoPersian Empire (536BC - 331BC)
3. Belly and thighs of Bronze: The Grecian Empire (331BC - 30BC)
4. Legs of Iron: The Roman Empire (30BC - 400AD)

My opponent will have no choice, as I see it, except to endlessly quibble over Dan 2: 40-44 " with special attention paid to "and whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay", but for now I simply introduce the passage and await his response. The simple fact will remain, however, that "those kings" does refer to the kings or emperors of the 4th worldwide kingdom, the Roman empire.

** We now move to the words of John the Baptist:

Matt 3: 1, 2: "In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near"." (KJV: "at hand")

** Jesus then stated the same thing more emphatically:

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: 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."

My opponent speculates, for some reason, that the kingdom which was "near" and "at hand" in about 30AD hasn"t shown up yet " in 2012. Why is that? Do "near", "nigh", and "at hand" mean 1832 years?

** Then again, Jesus said in Mark 9: 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."

Those people to whom Jesus was speaking were to see " to visualize " the arrival of the promised kingdom before they "tasted death." Alright, if Jesus told the truth, where are these folks? I don"t know, but when we locate them, they"ll make Methuselah look like a baby in diapers. Truth is: the kingdom came during their lifetime, and they are all dead now. 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
3. Who? The disciples and apostles who 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.

"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 terrible day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call."

Peter said, "This is that." My opponent will most likely say, "No, it wasn"t." We shall see.

Thus, we have this situation concerning the 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. Awaited by Joseph of Arimethea (Mark 15: 43)
6. Would appear before some standing with the Lord would die
7. Would come with power, power would come with the Spirit
8. Would all occur in Jerusalem

Alright, the Spirit came on Pentecost. The power came on Pentecost. They were in Jerusalem. Now comes Scotty and says, "Why, the kingdom that was prophesied and heralded simply hasn"t shown up yet." Pffft. It will evolve upon him to negate all these passages and offer his alternate explanation.

** Not only that, but prior to Acts 2, the kingdom is always referenced as future. But what about after Acts 2?

1. "Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son" (Col 1: 13) Paul is among that "us". So Paul was in the kingdom. The Colossians were among that "us". So the Colossians were in the kingdom. It will be very appropriate here from Scotty to speculate for us and tell how Paul and the Colossians were all "translated into the kingdom" " but it didn"t exist then and still doesn"t.

2. "I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus" (Rev 1: 9). So John was in it. Not only that, but the readers of Revelation in the first century were in it. Yet it hadn"t come?

Note now again Col 1: 13:

1. "Who" Who is "who"? God the Father
2. "Hath translated" (First aorist active indicative). Aorist is the English past tense, Scotty. It does not and cannot possibly refer to a future event.
3. "Us" Paul and the Colossians
4. "Into the kingdom" , i. e. the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

My opponent simply stands up and says, "The kingdom wasn"t there." Well, how, do tell, were these people translated into a kingdom that didn"t exist " and still doesn"t, according to your speculations?

Alright (for any readers who may not realize it), this entire discussion - including Scotty's point-blank denials that the kingdom exists now - are unto one end: to enable a belief in a future earthly kingdom, which in turn enables endless silly speculations and theories surrounding supposed "end times". That's all it boils down to. And the theories number in the hundreds. Every last one of them is based upon a flat-out and false denial that the kingdom of Christ never came. My position is that such a belief, if held, is a tendency towards infidelity because it reflects poorly on prophetic veracity as a whole.

I'll pause and wait my opponent's denial of these affirmative statements rather than attempting to anticipate his responses.


ScottyDouglas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Well, since there was no reply, I shall only advance a couple of passages that I intended to introduce in the first affirmative.

First of all, Dan 7: 13-14. I utilize this passage simply because people of Scotty"s mindset have a penchant for citing it as if it supports their position. It doesn"t. It supports mine.

Here, Daniel says: "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

In that vision, Daniel saw one like the Son of Man (Jesus Christ) who "came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days" (God the Father). And there " in the presence of God the Father " was given Him (Jesus Christ) three things: dominion, glory, and what? A kingdom.

Daniel did not say "coming from God the Father" to receive a kingdom, but going to " and going in or with clouds - the Father to receive it. So, mark it, Daniel sees Jesus Christ going to the Father in clouds. To what end? To receive a kingdom. Well, has He done that?

I cite Acts 1: 9-11: "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

1. Daniel says Jesus would go to the Father with clouds for the purpose of receiving a kingdom.
2.Luke says that Jesus ascended to the Father, and a cloud received Him.
3.My opponent says Jesus went to the Father and a cloud received Him, but He has yet to receive, or even have, any kingdom at all. Then he advertises himself as a "literal prophecy interpreter".

Truth is, my opponent thinks that Jesus Christ went to heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, yet has received no kingdom at all and rules over no kingdom. And he perverts the prophecy of Daniel to make it read, "I saw " one like the Son of man " come FROM the Ancient of days " and there was given him " a kingdom. Why? He asserts an anachronism and simply wants Jesus right here on earth to establish His kingdom.

Scotty, the passage pictures the ascension of Acts 1. Jesus has already gone to God the Father with clouds. He"s already received His kingdom and is now reigning over it. Daniel 7: 13-14 is not a "second coming" passage. It"s an ascension passage.

Tell you something else, casually. He ascended to the Father not only to receive a kingdom, but also to receive dominion, according to Daniel. Well, has He received that?

"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Eph 1: 20-23).

Does He have dominion now? Paul says He does. He ascended with clouds to heaven to receive dominion, glory, and a kingdom. Paul says He has the dominion part. So He got that much, anyway. But along comes Scotty and says there is no kingdom here today.

I"ve heard these fella go postal and try to retreat and say, "Well, yeah, ok, Jesus has a kingdom, but it"s not HERE." Such nonsense! Where, pray tell, is it? Can you locate it? Then they don a mysterious aura and say, "My kingdom is not of this world". Well, where exactly was Paul when he penned "translated us into the kingdom." Where was he? Where was John when he said the same thing? They were right here on earth, alive and breathing and writing. The meaning of "my kingdom is not of this world" is not that the kingdom does not exist on earth. It means exactly what I believe: the kingdom of Jesus Christ is not conformed to the nature of earthly kingdoms. The White House is in heaven " not over in Jerusalem. His servants do not engage in carnal warfare in defense of His kingdom. Thus, your "spiritually literal" excuse (which is just jibberish for saying it"s figurative in the first place) won"t fly very well as an explanation.

Alright, Jesus Christ said, two thousand years ago:

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1: 15)

I"ve asked, "What time is fulfilled?" What was the Lord talking about? I submitted that He had at least partial reference to Daniel 2 because He and His listeners were living in the days of the Roman Empire, the 4th worldwide kingdom. Of course Scotty will take the legs and feet and toes of Daniel"s image and try to stretch them out over a period of two thousand more years " after "the time is fulfilled." In advance, I"ll predict that trying to tack on two thousand years after "the time is fulfilled" isn"t going to work very well, i. e. that dog isn"t going to hunt. But alas, you can try it, Scotty.

Ok, you can also tack on the imminency of the ascension, the return to the Father with clouds, as a little more of that "the time is fulfilled." That"s exactly why John and Jesus said the kingdom was "at hand", "near", to "shortly come to pass." Why? Because Jesus returned to the Father to receive a kingdom. He"s not coming FROM the Father to receive a kingdom.

Just look at the (probable) disparity:

(1)Jesus ascended to receive glory. Did He? Paul says, "Yes"
(2)Jesus ascended to receive dominion. Did He? Paul say, "Yes"
(3)Jesus ascended to receive a kingdom. Did He? Well, it will evolve upon my opponent to elaborate. If yes, where is this kingdom? Where are the citizens of it? Where do they reside?

I"ll close. I really didn"t want to introduce a bunch of new arguments, and I typed casually much as I talk. And I"ll post this early in the day so Scotty will have all day long to respond to it. I"d really like him to answer a few questions in the process of replying:

(1)What time was fulfilled as per Mark 1: 15?
(2)Does the kingdom exist today?
(3)Does Jesus reign today?
(4)Does Jesus sit on the Throne of David today?
(5)If the kingdom does exist today, where is it?
(6)Were Paul and the Colossians in the kingdom?
(7)If so, are you?

And it took me a grand total, Scotty, of 41 minutes to type this reply. That's all. It doesn't take me days to answer an argument, and I do not string out debates over weeks. Also, I will be out-of-town starting Thursday and thus I can't go beyond Wednesday on any debate. Also, I didn't introduce any new arguments: I introduced one more passage in Dan 7 as supportive of Mark 1, "the time is fulfilled." There won't BE any new affirmatives until you respond to the ones previously submitted.


I FF, I did not realize this was a 24 hour debate! I have not got all day to post as this topic is far to important to rush through. All votes to Pro!
Debate Round No. 3


Well, exactly how long do you need to post a reply? It takes me a maximum of an hour - and that's if I have to look something up. And I'm not directly, actually, and bodily illuminated in my understanding by the Spirit as you are - which I suppose is a handicap for me as far as time goes.

Anyway, come up with an approximation as to how long it might take you to formulate a reply, and I'll debate it when I get back into town (which will be next Monday). Right now, I didn't have time to piddle around for 2-3 days while me or you or anyone else types out (what should be) an easy reply.


Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4


~~~ shaking my head ~~~
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
LOL. OK. Ignore them. I will. We can focus on our arguments. Add @Scotty and I will add @Anna.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
And the forum section is basically useless because there are too many people putting their two cents worth in. People like Composer and Dogknox. And of course, you have about five people in there now who are all directly "spirit-led" in their "understanding" - and they all contradict one another.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
Most debates are longer than 24 hours. I should have checked. That is my error. I, FF, this debate. This is exzactly why debating this way is useless. I will post your argument in the forum and debate itthere were there is ample time.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
It doesn't - or shouldn't - take all day at all. It takes thirty minutes to an hour to type a reply, and that's if you use all the characters alotted. I didn't advance any new affirmative arguments anyhow.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
You made this 24 hours? What! That is crap! I have a family, I have not got time to spend all day on this debate! That was ridicoulous!
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
so u are a presyybetarian ?? huhh
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
All - or nearly all, I should say - fulfilled by the crucifixion of Christ, establishment of the church on Pentecost, conversion of Cornelius, siege and starvation and destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. The debate is targeted at "Scotty Douglas" aka "Asylum". He suggested it offered to debate it, I posted it ... we'll see if he accepts it.
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago

do u think these prophesies are fffulfilled??
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: