The Instigator
annanicole
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
acvavra
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

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

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...
annanicole
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,617 times Debate No: 25127
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

annanicole

Con

I give the verses in the proposition (KJV):

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."

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."

Matthew 4:17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

First round acceptance only. Usual rules apply. Each disputant is permitted three questions per round (beginning with round 2) which are to be identified and answered by his opponent in the reply.
acvavra

Pro

accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
annanicole

Con

By way of introduction, I state that my opponent's position is simply the old "postponement theory" revisited. While premillennialists of old simply stated that the kingdom of God and/or kingdom of heaven never appeared at all, my opponent will, I presume, try to state that there are actually two kingdoms: one came as prophesied, predicted, and heralded. The other has been delayed, postponed, put-off for 2,000 years and counting. Such a delineation between "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" thus allows, I guess, a person to imagine that he is not denying the plain statements of Daniel, Isaiah, Jesus, and John: he is just "sorta" denying them - denying them with a wink and crossed fingers.

Now, a reader might wonder, "Why worry about it?" Well, for this reason: my opponent's speculative theories, including this postponement business, strike at the very heart of prophetic veracity. He envisions two kingdoms! Why? One reason: to meet the demands of his silly positions on the so-called "rapture", the literal 1,000-year reign, the return of pagan Rome to power, and the like. That's all there is to it. Remove his speculations, and neither he nor anyone else would have come up with this "postponement" stuff. Another reason is that it allows folks to sit in coffee shops (and at computers) and elaborate on the "signs of the times" - just as Wm Miller, Judge Rutherford, Herbert Armstrong did. Anyway, my opponent envisions two kingdoms: one which was automatically deferred and another one of his own manufacture.

The position, as I see it, reduces to this: he thinks his position (1) affords an escape from the inevitable consequences of his argument on the automatic postponement of the kingdom and (2) to evade such passages as Col 1: 13. So now he has two kingdoms, one of which was postponed and another which was never once foretold nor mentioned in the divine plan. Now it will be his task to prove it; for now, I am in the position of denying or "conning" a position which has not yet been fully stated - and probably will never be precisely explained.

I shall begin with 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."

and I shall couple this prophesy with both Isaiah 2: 2 and Joel 2: 28-32

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it."

"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."

Alright, I introduce Joel 2 simply because the Apostle Peter said in Acts 2, "This it that" - so that's that.

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)

"In the days of those kings" restricts the time element of the prophesy. What kings? The Roman emperors. So there is a definite time-element involved in Nebuchadnezzar's Dream and Daniel's interpretation. Unless a kingdom was established within that time frame, I submit that the prophesy simply failed. I do not know my opponent's exact position on this passage, so I shall ask, (1) "Was the kingdom as prophesied by Daniel established during the reign of the Roman Emperors between ~30BC and ~400AD or not?" If not, has it occurred to anyone that when a prophesy is inseparably linked to a time-element, it cannot be postponed or else the prophesy failed? If the time-element makes no difference, then .. umm .. I think I'll become a prophet: "I predict the south Texas will have a bad ice storm this winter." It could happen. It eventually will. I think I'll "postpone" it til it does.

With Dan 2 as the background, I will simply state that my opponent's assertion that the "kingdom of heaven" as used by Matthew is somehow different from the "kingdom of God" as used elsewhere is purely arbitrary and, in fact, manufactured to meet the demands of his theories. The terms are used interchangeably in Matthew and Mark:

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."

Matthew 4:17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Alright, it does not take a Biblical scholar to see that "kingdom of God" in Mark is equivalent to "kingdom of heaven" in Matthew. My opponent's task will be to clearly explain the difference and give some kind of internal evidence that such a difference is necessary. It won't do to say: "Oh, there is a millennium so I'll devise a kingdom-postponement theory to accommodate it." (2) Please explain clearly, based upon internal evidence, the difference between the two phrases as used in Mark and Matthew.

Did Jesus state that two different kingdoms were "at hand" (imminent, near, close-by) 2,000 years ago? I assume that my opponent will merely assert that He did! Not only that, but (even though both were "at hand") it seems that one came about right on schedule, yet the other has not shown up yet. If so, any significance underlying the heralds of the impending kingdom as "at hand" amount to three ciphers, two naughts, and a zero. "At hand", to my opponent, means whatever he asserts: again it's all presumptive and arbitrary. For one so bent on literalizing everything from beasts to serpents to millenia, it is singularly odd that "at hand" and "near" and "nigh" have no meaning at all, isn't it? So a 1,000 reign is literal, but "at hand" means 2,000 years and counting?

I will pause due to the difficulty in anticipating "pros" arguments and allow him to fully explain his position. And I'll ask (3) "Has the kingdom of Col 1: 13 yet appeared, and if so, which one is it? And can you prove it without employing circular reasoning?"
acvavra

Pro

First off, I would like to thank Con for setting this up.

To be clear, The Kingdom of God is an inward, spiritual(Romans 14:17), invisible kingdom inside you(Luke 17:20-21), that one gets from the New Birth(John 3:3), whereas the Kingdom of Heaven is a literal, visible, earthly kingdom of Christ reigning over the earth. The facts are that Christ told his disciples that they would see it(Matthew 16:28), that this kingdom would come with power(Daniel 7:22, Revelation 12:10), and millions see it(Isaiah 2:2-3, 11:9-12, Amos 9:11-15, Zechariah 14:9,16-21). Many expositors make the two the same because it APPEARS that they are, WHEN THEY'RE NOT. For example, my opponent lists verses that make the two terms APPEAR interchangable but they are different. She lists:

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."

Matthew 4:17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

There is a huge problem with her logic though. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are BOTH THE KINGDOMS OF JESUS CHRIST. He is the king of BOTH. Thus, when he came the first time, BOTH WERE AT HAND, BECAUSE HE IS THE KING OF BOTH.

My opponent states, "Did Jesus state that two different kingdoms were "at hand" (imminent, near, close-by) 2,000 years ago? I assume that my opponent will merely assert that He did! Not only that, but (even though both were "at hand") it seems that one came about right on schedule, yet the other has not shown up yet. If so, any significance underlying the heralds of the impending kingdom as "at hand" amount to three ciphers, two naughts, and a zero. "

She assumes that I make the phrase "at hand" metaphorical. I do not. The Kingdom of Heaven was DEFINITELY AT HAND when Jesus came. It was imminent, IT WAS NOT 2,000 YEARS OFF. HOWEVER, 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. But when the JEWS rejected CHRIST(John 1:11) and crucified Him(Matthew 27) He went to the Gentiles. He EVEN gave the JEWS A SECOND CHANCE AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION(Luke 23:34) when he forgave them. But when they stoned Stephen in Acts 7 God was done with the Jews as a nation. In Acts 8, the Ethiopian Eunuch(Gentile) gets saved. In Acts 9 Paul gets saved and becomes an Apostle TO GENTILE CHRISTIANS. In Acts 10, Cornelius a gentile gets saved. Its at this point that the kingdom of Heaven IS NO LONGER "at hand." When the Jews stoned Stephen, The Kingdom became postponed and God turned to the Gentiles. Is that clear, Con? IT WAS "AT HAND" BUT NOT ANY MORE. The Kingdom of God never got postponed BECAUSE ITS SPIRITUAL.

The Kingdom of Colossians 1:13 is the Kingdom of God. Notice SPIRITUAL SALVATION in verse 14.

Rebttal to Joel 2 and Acts 2

NOTHING IN ACTS 2:16-21 happened in Acts 2 at all. Did God show them "wonders in heaven above" or "signs in the earth beneath." Did the sun turn to darkness or the moon into blood in Acts 2. Did God pour out his Spirit to ALL FLESH in Acts 2. No, just to the Jews.
What is happening is Peter goes back to the Old Testament and finds a passage where somebody receives the Holy Ghost, but it has nothing to do with the events of Acts 2. He is saying, "This is what Joel says" and then launches into a sermon about Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit(vss 22-38). Anybody who has sat under Bible preaching for any length of time knows that many a pastor does exactly the same thing.

Rebuttal to Daniel 2

The 4th kingdom of Daniel 2 in verse 44 is the Roman Empire. But when it says "the days of these kings" it's not to any kings of the 1st century. Its the 10 kings(fallen angels) that serve the Antichrist in the future(Rev 17:12). Its clear from Daniel 2:43 that these kings are not human. It says in verse 43 that they, "mingle themselves WITH THE SEED OF MEN." This implies that they are not human if they are mingling with man's seed. Thus these kings are still future.

I yield the floor to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
annanicole

Con

"To be clear, The Kingdom of God is an inward, spiritual(Romans 14:17), invisible kingdom inside you(Luke 17:20-21 ... whereas the Kingdom of Heaven is a literal, visible, earthly kingdom of Christ reigning over the earth."

That's about as clear as mud. All this talk about "invisible" and "visible" kingdoms is just sectarian jibberish invented to satisfy the demands of some theory. Do you notice there is no Bible passage for his 2nd part about the so-called "visible earthly kingdom"?

** ""Many expositors make the two the same because it APPEARS that they are, WHEN THEY'RE NOT."

There's a very good reason why so many expositors state that the "kingdom", "kingdom of heave", "kingdom of God", and "kingdom of His dear Son" are all the same.

** "The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are BOTH THE KINGDOMS OF JESUS CHRIST."

Absolutely! Mainly because they are one and the same. So the kingdom of Jesus Christ represents both? I give you Col 1: 13: "and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." "His dear Son" is Jesus Christ, isn't it? So the verse means, "and hath translated us into the kingdom of Jesus Christ".

** "Concerning Mark 1 and Matt 4, he says "There is a huge problem with her logic though."

No, the two are synonyms. No logistical problem at all. There is a 'huge problem' with trying to defend a theology of premillennial speculation, though.

** "She assumes that I make the phrase "at hand" metaphorical. I do not."

Ok, you take it literally. Thus, when Jesus and John spoke of the kingdom of heaven as being "at hand", they meant literally, as per you. Fine. If Jesus meant it literally, and both of us say that He did, which one of us is keeping Jesus true to His word?

** "The Kingdom became postponed and God turned to the Gentiles. Is that clear, Con? IT WAS "AT HAND" BUT NOT ANY MORE. The Kingdom of God never got postponed BECAUSE ITS SPIRITUAL."

Alright, there we have it. The kingdom of heaven heralded as "at hand" by both John and Jesus was POST-PONED! So they simply got it wrong! My opponent says that both Jesus and John explicitly said it was "at hand", and my opponent says, "Oh, that's literal." But it didn't happen! It hasn't happened yet. So Jesus and John literally missed it, huh?

** "IT WAS "AT HAND" BUT NOT ANY MORE."

Well, he elects to cling to his speculations. Alright, then it was never truly, really, actually "at hand" to start with, was it? I repeat: when a Biblical prophecy has a time-element to it, it cannot be postponed. If it could be and were, then the prophesy was just wrong. If John and Jesus messed up by 2,000 years on this deal, how many more times did they foul it up? For one who clings so tightly and absolutely to a lot of guesswork on future events - and then defends the prognostications, you sure "pigeon-hole" and "postpone" events with ease.

** I asked: ""Has the kingdom of Col 1: 13 yet appeared, and if so, which one is it? And can you prove it without employing circular reasoning?"

My opponent replied: "The Kingdom of Colossians 1:13 is the Kingdom of God. Notice SPIRITUAL SALVATION in verse 14."

So he says it has appeared. Very well. Obviously it has. He states (or asserts) that Col 1: 13 refers to the "kingdom of God", but not the "kingdom of heaven". His proof? Verse 14: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." Certainly salvation is in the kingdom. Nobody denied that. But your proof that Col 1: 13 does not refer to the "kingdom of heaven" is sorely lacking.

** " Its clear from Daniel 2:43 that these kings are not human"

Clear to whom? The vast majority of Bible students do not assign some other-than-human meaning, sort-of a theological E. T. I simply give two examples:

"the Romans shall mix with people of other and many nations that shall come in among them, and unite in setting up kingdoms; or these kingdoms set up shall intermarry with each other, in order to strengthen their alliances, and support their interests" - Gill, Baptist

"The expression "seed of men," as here used, would therefore denote some intermingling of an inferior race with the original stock; some union or alliance under the one sovereignty, which would greatly weaken it as a whole, though the original strength still was great. " Barnes, Presbyterian

** "But when it says "the days of these kings" it's not to any kings of the 1st century."

That's not what the passage says, is it? Verse 40 states, " And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron ... " And you concur: "The 4th kingdom of Daniel 2 in verse 44 is the Roman Empire." Verse 42 continues, "so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken." Which kingdom? The one of verse 40, the Roman Empire. Without a break or mention of any different kingdom, we have v 44. What do you mean, looking over in Revelation, then trying to claim that the kings aren't even human? Do y'all see what I mean by silly speculations based upon figurative language? Could you explain Dan 2: 40-44 a little more clearly. If nothing else, your explanations are quite interesting compared to all these world-renowned commentators.

** HOWEVER, 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."

I emphatically deny that. It's not the point of this discussion, but of course, is essential to your theology on premilleniallism. Jesus Christ came for both Jew and Gentile. Such was the mystery of the ages: that both Jew and Gentile would be united in one body, the church, and I cite Ephesians, particular chapter 1.

** "NOTHING IN ACTS 2:16-21 happened in Acts 2 at all. "

Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; and it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh
I can't figure it out: those old Jews were hearing sounds as of a mighty rushing wind, hearing Galileans speak in foreign languages, seeing tongues as of fire sitting on top of them, and Peter says, "This (what you are seeing and hearing) is THAT spoken by Joel. And now comes acvavra and says, "No, Peter, this was not THAT. None of it happened."

*** "He is saying, "This is what Joel says"

There's a certain warning pronounced on people that add or remove. "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." Peter didn't simply say, "This is what Joel says." He says, "This is THAT" - what you are seeing now is what Joel was talking about: this is the beginning of fulfillment of that prophesy, and the prophecy was ultimately fulfilled at the conversion of Cornelius.

I'm amazed that someone who specializes in Biblical prophesy would deny that when Peter said "No, fellas, these guys aren't drunk. Look how early it is - 9 AM. This is that which was spoken by Joel", he meant literally, "THIS is THAT." For me, when Peter says, "THIS is THAT, then THAT's THAT, and I have the best commentator in the world on the subject - an inspired apostle. You, however, come along and flatly deny it: ""NOTHING IN ACTS 2:16-21 happened in Acts 2 at all. " I do not think you would make such rash statements unless you were defending an entire system - premilleniallism.

I have one general question:

If Jesus can change an "at hand" to mean 2,000+ years (which I deny anyway), could He not shorten this supposed 1,000 year reign to one second? Would that be possible?
acvavra

Pro

Con said, "Do you notice there is no Bible passage for his 2nd part about the so-called "visible earthly kingdom"?
I most certainly did too. Let me quote what I wrote: "The facts are that Christ told his disciples that they would see it(Matthew 16:28), that this kingdom would come with power(Daniel 7:22, Revelation 12:10), and millions see it(Isaiah 2:2-3, 11:9-12, Amos 9:11-15, Zechariah 14:9,16-21)."

Con said, " Alright, there we have it. The kingdom of heaven heralded as "at hand" by both John and Jesus was POST-PONED! So they simply got it wrong! My opponent says that both Jesus and John explicitly said it was "at hand", and my opponent says, "Oh, that's literal." But it didn't happen! It hasn't happened yet. So Jesus and John literally missed it, huh?"

They did not get it wrong. Failure and postponement ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. If I reschedule an appointment, I didn't fail, I put it off to a later date. 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.

Con said, "Alright, then it was never truly, really, actually "at hand" to start with, was it?"
It most certainly was. Did you read what I wrote? Let me repeat again: "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. But when the JEWS rejected CHRIST(John 1:11) and crucified Him(Matthew 27) He went to the Gentiles. He EVEN gave the JEWS A SECOND CHANCE AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION(Luke 23:34) when he forgave them. But when they stoned Stephen in Acts 7 God was done with the Jews as a nation. In Acts 8, the Ethiopian Eunuch(Gentile) gets saved. In Acts 9 Paul gets saved and becomes an Apostle TO GENTILE CHRISTIANS. In Acts 10, Cornelius a gentile gets saved. Its at this point that the kingdom of Heaven IS NO LONGER "at hand."

The fact of the matter is that THE DEVIL HAD CONTROL OF ALL THE KINGDOMS WHEN CHRIST CAME. The Devil said to Christ in Matthew 4:8-9:

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE WORLD, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."

Christ is not currently reigning over his kingdom right now, THE DEVIL IS. And before Con says," Well, that was before the Crucifixion" I would like to remind Con that the Devil wasn't tied and bound(figuratively or literally) after the Cross. Romans 16:20 says:

" And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen."

This proves Satan isn't through with yet. Thus, the binding in Revelation 20 IS STILL FUTURE.

Furthermore, the disciples asked Christ just before His Ascension if he would now restore the kingdom to Israel(Acts 1:6). And you know, Con, he didn't say, "No, you idiots, its a spiritual kingdom." He said in Acts 1:7:

"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."

In other words, you can't know when its coming, BUT ITS COMING. Con, I submit to you that Jesus Christ believes in an eathly, literal, visible kingdom.

Con said, "But your proof that Col 1: 13 does not refer to the "kingdom of heaven" is sorely lacking."
I'm not sure how. Verse 14 makes it clear that its a spiritual kingdom.

Con said, "And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron ... " And you concur: "The 4th kingdom of Daniel 2 in verse 44 is the Roman Empire."
Yes it is the Roman Empire, but its a Revived Roman Empire thats still future. That's clear from Daniel 2:44 which says:

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.

Has God's kingdom consumed all these kingdoms? Then why is Rome still a powerful entity? How about Greece? Or Iran(Persia)? Has God's kingdom been left to other people? Indeed it has since God's nowhere to be found on this earth. He's left it to some lousy Christians who are in submission to secular governments. If we are kings NOW, then God has certainly left his kingdom to other people.

The only correct interpretation is that this Roman Empire will be revived and then Destroyed at the Second Coming.

Further, God has done a lousy job of reigning over this world if he's the king right now. Millions of murders, rapes, thefts, wars, explosions, famines, plagues, extortion, government coverups, and holes in the ozone layer makes God a lousy king. Wouldn't you have to agree, Con?

Con says, "I emphatically deny that. It's not the point of this discussion, but of course, is essential to your theology on premilleniallism. Jesus Christ came for both Jew and Gentile. Such was the mystery of the ages: that both Jew and Gentile would be united in one body, the church, and I cite Ephesians, particular chapter 1."

There is Jew and Gentile in a Church body NOW, but its after the Crucifixion. He came ORIGINALLY for the Jews. If you deny that, then explain Matthew 10:5-6 which says:

" These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Con said, "There's a certain warning pronounced on people that add or remove. "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." Peter didn't simply say, "This is what Joel says." He says, "This is THAT" - what you are seeing now is what Joel was talking about: this is the beginning of fulfillment of that prophesy, and the prophecy was ultimately fulfilled at the conversion of Cornelius."

Peter is like a yankee up north. When Southerners talk, they say, "That's true." When Yankee's talk, they say, "This is true." It's the "this" that's confusing. But that's how Peter talks, he says, "This is that." Further, Con when you say, "This is that which was spoken by Joel", he meant literally, "THIS is THAT," is rather funny since NOTHING LITERALLY happened in Acts 2 that was prophesied in Joel 2. Peter has to make it figurative. Peter is using a sermon illustration from Joel 2. Any pastor does this with stories from the Bible when he preaches a sermon.

Con says, "If Jesus can change an "at hand" to mean 2,000+ years (which I deny anyway), could He not shorten this supposed 1,000 year reign to one second? Would that be possible?"
Indeed, he could, but the Bible fulfils prophecies literally.

Sources
http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 3
annanicole

Con

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.
acvavra

Pro

Jesus doesn't have to try to convert the Jews, they will convert after the tribulation. Hebrews 8:10 says, "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days(tribulation), saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people."

This was written aftr the Jews crucified Christ, meaning sometime in the future THERE WILL BE A MASS CONVERSION OF THE JEWS for God will write it on their hearts. Silly speculations Con? No, I use Scripture!

Con said, "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."

And yet you have provided no verse to prove the Kingdom of Heaven is the church. They had power to be witnesses, NOT kings.

Con said, "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)"

Indeed, God does know everything. In fact, God knows people will reject him and go to Hell and he doesn't do anything about it. Yes, God knew that the Jews WOULD reject him, but the KINGDOM WAS STILL AT HAND BEFORE THEY REJECTED HIM. He gave them the option, even though he knew the outcome. But that's just God's character. He knew Adam would eat from the Tree even though he told him not too. Why didn't God just not create the Tree? You could also ask why he told the Jews the kingdom was at hand, but he knew they would reject him. It's just God's way of doing things.

Con said, "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."

First off, you didn't answer A SINGLE QUESTION I BROUGHT UP ABOUT THAT VERSE NOT REFERING TO ROME IN THE FIRST CENTURY. You haven't provided a SINGLE REBUTTAL. I will let my arguments stand until you do. Here they are:

Has God's kingdom consumed all these kingdoms? Then why is Rome still a powerful entity? How about Greece? Or Iran(Persia)? Has God's kingdom been left to other people? Indeed it has since God's nowhere to be found on this earth. He's left it to some lousy Christians who are in submission to secular governments. If we are kings NOW, then God has certainly left his kingdom to other people.

Con said, "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."

All the nations of the earth will be blessed THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. Christ came from Abraham which is what the verse is talking about. In that sense the Gentiles will be blessed, for Jesus died for their sins. But again, God knew that would happen. However, that's not who He originally came for. The Church was plan B, it was the result of the Jews rejection of Christ.

Con said, "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."

No, Jesus forgave them at the Crucifixion(Luke 23:34). Remember, Jesus was "standing" to receive Stephen. He is sitting down on his throne in Heaven CURRENTLY. The standing signifies that Jesus was willing to bring in the Kingdom IF they had listened to Stephen. They didn't, and so now he is set down during the Church Age.

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?

That's what the Bible says. I gave you the verses(Matthew 4:8-9). It's up to you to accept them or reject them. Satan is currently the king.

Con said, " 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."

He accomplished the work of telling the Jews to accept Him as the Messiah.

Con said, " 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."

You say this statement without addressing the verse I gave(Romans 16:20). I will let my argument stand since you have avoided addressing the verse.

Con said, "That simply shows that the disciples continued to make the same mistake that you do, only they had more of an excuse.

Isn't it rather interesting that the Jews expected an earthly kingdom? I wonder where they got the idea from. Further, that would have been the ideal moment for Jesus to tell his disciples that His kingdom was ONLY spiritual, and yet He didn't tell them that(Acts 1:7)!

"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?"

Con said, "Absolutely I would not."

You say that without examining my reasoning. Consider Con: Millions of murders, rapes, thefts, wars, explosions, famines, plagues, extortion, government coverups, and holes in the ozone layer makes God a lousy king if he's ruling right now. Satan being the king MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE.

Con said, "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."

Which shows that Gentiles are Plan B if it was for the Jews first!

Con said, "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."

Well, but the events of Joel 2 WILL BE FULFILLED LITERALLY. The Sun turns to darkness and Moon turn to blood in Revelation 6:12. Remember Revelation was WRITTEN AFTER PETER SAID THESE THINGS. The Jews do get deliverance at Mount Zion at the Second Coming(Zechariah 14). All flesh do get the Spirit poured on them at the Second Coming(Hebrews 8:10). Just because Peter made it figurative FOR A SERMON ILLUSTRATION DOES NOT MEAN IT WONT BE FULFILLED LITERALLY.
Debate Round No. 4
annanicole

Con

I repeat: when a prophecy has a time-element, such as

1. God says through inspiration that a certain thing WILL happen, then
2. God says that this event WILL occur within a certain time frame,

and the time-frame comes and goes with nada happening, such represents an overall failure of the prophecy and reflects poorly upon the veracity of prophecy in general. Skeptics, atheists, and infidels would have a field day with such a position, yet my opponent clings tenaciously to it. Hear him:

Pro: "Christ is not currently reigning over his kingdom right now, THE DEVIL IS."

"Who hath delivered us ... and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son ... " A kingdom - but no king.

Pro: "God has done a lousy job of reigning over this world if he's the king right now."

" And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

Pro: ""They did not get it wrong. Failure and postponement ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS."

A failure might not be due to postponement, but an imaginary postponement = failure.

Pro: "Yes it is the Roman Empire, but its a Revived Roman Empire thats still future."

Methinks you are making that one up.

Pro: "It says in verse 43 that they, "mingle themselves WITH THE SEED OF MEN." This implies that they are not human if they are mingling with man's seed."

Best I can tell, if pro is correct, we have no kingdom of heaven now, no king now, no reign now. The statements of Daniel, Isaiah, John, and Jesus failed so far as the time element goes. We have to wait for pagan Rome, Roman emperors, Roman rule of the earth, then non-human life forms will breed with humans. Then the Jews will mass convert, somehow - without explanation. Then Jesus will sit over there in Palestine and rule for exactly 1,000 years. And that's a legitimate theological system? All it's good for is providing fodder and comedy relief for skeptics and infidels.

It all boils down to this: one kingdom was envisioned by God; one kingdom was prophesied by Daniel and Isaiah and others; one kingdom was heralded by John, then Jesus. After Acts 2, the Colossians were in the kingdom. John was in the kingdom. The kingdom existed. In order to satisfy the demands of his speculative system, my opponent must INVENT another one that was never prophesied nor promised - a vague "spiritual" kingdom as opposed to a literal, earthly kingdom. He says "one came, one didn't" - as if there were ever two to start with.

*** "Jesus doesn't have to try to convert the Jews, they will convert after the tribulation."

Whatever your position on it - millennialists have a dozen - your theories call for an inexplicable, miraculous conversion of the Jews, which amounts to a complete setting-aside of the gospel plan of salvation. You can't explain what will cause this conversion.

*** "Hebrews 8:10 says, "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days(tribulation), saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. This was written aftr the Jews crucified Christ, meaning sometime in the future."

Good grief. You think that refers to a future tribulation? That passage wasn't written, technically, after the crucificion, and you know it. That passage is a quote from Jeremiah 31: 31-34, and, as Dr. Barnes says, "There can be no doubt that as it is used by Jeremiah it refers to the times of the gospel." The passage from Jeremiah is used by the writer of Hebrews to picture the superiority of the gospel system of Christianity over the Jewish economy.

*** "And yet you have provided no verse to prove the Kingdom of Heaven is the church. They had power to be witnesses, NOT kings."

^ ^ ^ ^ quibble. "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever." (Rev 1: 6)

*** "It's just God's way of doing things."

That's my opponent's ultimate explanation. Mass Jewish conversion? Non-humans breeding or mingling with humans? Pagan Rome returning? He knows how it looks, so he writes it off as "just God's way." "God's way" is to promise, prophesy, and herald an event as "at hand" - near, close, imminent - then just never do it?

*** "First off, you didn't answer A SINGLE QUESTION I BROUGHT UP ABOUT THAT VERSE NOT REFERING TO ROME IN THE FIRST CENTURY."

I stated that "the time is fulfilled, the kingdom is at hand" and asked you WHAT was fulfilled?

*** "The Church was plan B, it was the result of the Jews rejection of Christ."

"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)

I mentioned Eph 3 two or three times already. No response. The church is not and was not a contingent, an accident, an after-thought, a stop-gap measure or any of the other semi-deragotory terms, such as Plan B, that millennialists so frequently apply to it.

*** "Which shows that Gentiles are Plan B if it was for the Jews first!"

Eph 3. I suppose you will eventually notice the passage when I have no opportunity to rebut.

*** "Well, but the events of Joel 2 WILL BE FULFILLED LITERALLY. "

Who said so? YOU? If so, the Apostle Peter was a little better prophesy-interpretter. He said, "THIS ... THIS ... THIS is THAT which was spoken by Joel". You give us a quibble about Yankees versus Dixie, and simply assert that Joel 2 has never been fulfilled at all.

*** "You say that without examining my reasoning."

My denial is worth as much as your assertion. You HAD no reasoning. "People kill people; therefore, the reign of Christ is yet future." <-- Is that it?

*** "Satan being the king MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE."

Amazing. You say, without a blush, the Satan is the king. We are in a kingdom but we have no king? In whatever sense Christ is king today, according to you, it seems that millennialists think He is the most impotent king that ever existed.

*** Rom 16: 20 " And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." So what? You say, "This proves Satan isn't through with yet."

Well, that's a reference to Gen 3: 15: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

All it means it that God, the God of peace, will providentially subdue elements of contention or discord in the early church. See the word "shortly" in there? Of course, you think that word means 2,000+ years and counting, but it doesn't.

*** "Further, that would have been the ideal moment for Jesus to tell his disciples that His kingdom was ONLY spiritual, and yet He didn't tell them that(Acts 1:7)"

He already HAD: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

And what do you say? You say His kingdom is MOST DEFINATELY of this world - right over there in Palestine, in Jerusalem, on the earthly throne of David, and His servants will fight battles.

***

Con: Jesus: "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do."

Pro: "He accomplished the work of telling the Jews to accept Him as the Messiah."

Umm ... that's not all He came to do, was it? He came to establish a literal, earthly reign - and did not do it. Hence, you deny that He "finished the work that the Father gave Him to do." He did a little of it, but certainly didn't finish it. There's no way to quibble out of that, either. Take note, atheists!
acvavra

Pro

Last Minute Rebuttals
There was no time element. It was merely postponed.

Colossians 1:13 is refering to the Kingdom of God, a spiritual Kingdom.

Con REFUSED TO ANSWER my reasoning behind God being a lousy king right now of the earth.

Con quotes, " And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
Yes, and Jesus has given the power of this world to the Devil.

Con said, "Best I can tell, if pro is correct, we have no kingdom of heaven now, no king now, no reign now. The statements of Daniel, Isaiah, John, and Jesus failed so far as the time element goes. We have to wait for pagan Rome, Roman emperors, Roman rule of the earth, then non-human life forms will breed with humans. Then the Jews will mass convert, somehow - without explanation. Then Jesus will sit over there in Palestine and rule for exactly 1,000 years. And that's a legitimate theological system? All it's good for is providing fodder and comedy relief for skeptics and infidels."

First off, Con says this is comedy relief for infidels and skeptics, but she doesn't consider all the scripture I've given to back this up. Second, The Jews will mass convert based on Hebrews 8:10-there is an explanation.

Con said, "Good grief. You think that refers to a future tribulation? That passage wasn't written, technically, after the crucificion, and you know it. That passage is a quote from Jeremiah 31: 31-34, and, as Dr. Barnes says, "There can be no doubt that as it is used by Jeremiah it refers to the times of the gospel." The passage from Jeremiah is used by the writer of Hebrews to picture the superiority of the gospel system of Christianity over the Jewish economy."

Hoe come Jeremiah couldn't prophesy of the future? We both believe the Bible is the Word of God. Don't you think God can foretell of future events?

Con quotes, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever." (Rev 1: 6).

Indeed, except John wrote Revelation of "things which are to come." The verse is still future.

My opponent misrepresents me. When I said, "It's just God's way of doing things" I was ANSWERING her statements about Christ knowing the Jews would reject him. Look at round 4 if you don't believe me.

Con said, "I stated that "the time is fulfilled, the kingdom is at hand" and asked you WHAT was fulfilled?"

It was the time for the Jews to accept Christ, it was the prper time, that's what was fulfilled. The rejection postponed the time to later.

Con said, "Eph 3. I suppose you will eventually notice the passage when I have no opportunity to rebut."
Indeed, God KNEW the Jews would reject Him, and He KNEW that the Church would occur, BUT IT WASN'T THE ORIGINAL PLAN. Ephesians 3 is saying God knew that the Church would occur.

"Well, but the events of Joel 2 WILL BE FULFILLED LITERALLY. "

Con said, " Who said so? YOU? If so, the Apostle Peter was a little better prophesy-interpretter. He said, "THIS ... THIS ... THIS is THAT which was spoken by Joel". You give us a quibble about Yankees versus Dixie, and simply assert that Joel 2 has never been fulfilled at all."

Not me at all. You cant face facts. I gave the verses in Revelation. I refer you to round 4.

Con said, "My denial is worth as much as your assertion. You HAD no reasoning. "People kill people; therefore, the reign of Christ is yet future." <-- Is that it?"

When Christ was here on earth, no one died hardly. He raised people from the dead, put an ear back on a man, performed miracles, cast out devils, etc. He DID GOOD ALL AROUND HIM. The fact that this World DOES SO MUCH EVIL contradicts all that Christ did here on earth. Satan is the king right now.

Con said, "All it means it that God, the God of peace, will providentially subdue elements of contention or discord in the early church. See the word "shortly" in there? Of course, you think that word means 2,000+ years and counting, but it doesn't."

And you have no verse to substantiate your claim. Since God is outside time, "shortly" can be long for us, but short for God.

"Further, that would have been the ideal moment for Jesus to tell his disciples that His kingdom was ONLY spiritual, and yet He didn't tell them that(Acts 1:7)"

Con said, "He already HAD: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

And what do you say? You say His kingdom is MOST DEFINATELY of this world - right over there in Palestine, in Jerusalem, on the earthly throne of David, and His servants will fight battles."

The verse that you quoted has an interesting word in it. Notice the "now" in the verse. Jesus said," NOW is my kingdom not from hence" BUT IT WILL BE LATER. Acts 1:7 proves that, since it was written AFTER the Crucifixion.

Con: Jesus: "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do."

Pro: "He accomplished the work of telling the Jews to accept Him as the Messiah."

Con said, "Umm ... that's not all He came to do, was it? He came to establish a literal, earthly reign - and did not do it. Hence, you deny that He "finished the work that the Father gave Him to do." He did a little of it, but certainly didn't finish it. There's no way to quibble out of that, either. Take note, atheists!"

The Father DIDN'T SEND HIM TO DO THAT. John 3:16 says what He sent Him to do: to save sinners! The earthly kingdom was between the Jews and Jesus, it had NOTHING to do with God the Father.

Con has failed to prove the Kingdom is a spiritual kingdom ONLY, and I have submitted the burden of proof that its earthly as well. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
This debate reminds me very strongly about one of the first warning I received when I started reading about prophecies in Islam.

Prophecies are interesting and mysterious. The commandments of religion appear predictable and boring. Yet the commandments are much more important than prophecies.

Imagine for a moment, that A follows all the commandment but is not sure about second coming of Jesus (Peace on Him). B ignores all the commandments and focuses on prophecies. A is most probably safer than B under all scenarios. If Jesus does come now, God will guide A to the correct destination (God willing). On other hand, B may misinterpret some of the prophecies and end up on the wrong side.

Jews failed in understanding the purpose of Christ (Peace on Him). The purpose of a prophet is not to establish a 'kingdom'. The purpose is to deliver the message. If people reject the message, then the loss belongs to the community. If the people accept the message, the Prophet will guide the community and probably establish a 'kingdom' as well. The mission of the Prophet does not fail or succeed depending on kingdom. The prophet has completed the job as soon as he delivers the message.

IMO both the Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God refer to the day of judgement, which is going to come soon enough. 'Soon' does not mean 'soon' in human terms (though it might be). It is 'soon' on cosmic scale.

The Holy Quran 21:1
Closer and closer to mankind comes their Reckoning: yet they heed not and they turn away.
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
RFD:

I read the whole debate (which is long) looking for one crucial point. Acvavra has not presented any direct evidence from scriptures that...

1. 'Kingdom of Heaven' is different from 'Kingdom of God'.
2. One of them got 'postponed'.

His arguments are based on arguments which goes like: "Prophecy mentioned in ______ was not fulfilled. Hence it must have been postponed". There is another more likely possibility he is ignoring. Our understanding of the prophecy might be wrong.

Both Pro and Con need to focus on better formatting (see Zaradi's confusion). Conduct goes to Con due Pro's propensity to capitalize arbitrarily; which is equivalent to shouting in written debate.
Posted by acvavra 5 years ago
acvavra
I agree with annanicole.
Posted by annanicole 5 years ago
annanicole
You do not make a lick of sense, Zaradi. The proposition is "The kingdom as prophesied in Dan 2:44 and heralded in Mark 1:15 and Matthew 4:17 has never appeared". I deny that the proposition is true: I am con. I maintain that the kingdom has appeared.

Likewise, acvavra did in fact attempt to prove that the proposition is true. He affirms the proposition. He believes the promised kingdom is yet future. He is pro, and affirmed the proposition throughout. He did not once try to disprove the proposition as you allege.

Thus, the only "epic fail" is your comment, and I'd predict that acvavra will agree with me on that.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
So people are probably wondering why I said I'd give my RFD in the comments section, yet I awarded neither side any points. It's simple, really: both sides epically failed and no one noticed it or pointed it out. Allow me to explain.

The resolution, as stated by the instigator, was "The kingdom as prophesied in Dan 2:44 and heralded in Mark 1:15 and Matthew 4:17 has never appeared". Anna is con to this resolution, which means she is claiming that the resolution of "The kingdom as prophesied in Dan 2:44 and heralded in Mark 1:15 and Matthew 4:17 has never appeared" is false. Yet she takes up the pro position and attempts to prove the validity of the resolution, essentially trying to affirm the resolution.

acvavra has the pro position, which means he was trying to prove that the resolution of "The kingdom as prophesied in Dan 2:44 and heralded in Mark 1:15 and Matthew 4:17 has never appeared" is true, yet he takes up the con position and attempts to disprove the resolution!

Hence, I award neither of them any points due to them both epically failing. Case closed.

http://www.debate.org...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
annanicoleacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
annanicoleacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments