The Instigator
annanicole
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Awriternamedred
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
annanicole
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,989 times Debate No: 44730
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

annanicole

Pro

Definition of Terms

Kingdom: an organization, either temporal or spiritual, governed by a reigning monarch

Of Jesus Christ: that is, inaugurated, belonging to, and ruled by Jesus Christ
Brought into Existence: established, set up, firmly fixed
First Century A. D.: the first one hundred years after the birth of Christ as typically reckoned, A. D. 1 through A. D. 100


What is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ?


The true nature of the promised kingdom of the Messiah was contrary to the expectations of the Jews. As it turned out, the kingdom of Christ was to be in the world, but not of the world. Far from being an outward affair, its territory was to be the human heart and mind. Its warfare was to be spiritual, not carnal. It was to conquer by the gospel, not the sword. Its citizens were to be willing citizens, not vanquished subjects. It is engaged in constant warfare, but the war is of persuasion. At the end of time, on that last great day when the last enemy, death, is destroyed, the glorious kingdom of Christ will be presented to the Father. Does Jesus Christ reign today? Of course He does! He reigns in the hearts and minds of men. It will evolve upon my opponent to give some sort of description of the kingdom, and I surmise that he will inform us that Jesus Christ presently is not reigning, is not on His throne, and has no kingdom at all! We shall see.


Place Your Bets


What to watch for: these debates with the 1,000-year-reign folks are always interesting for we already know that they will place their speculative interpretations of certain highly figurative prophesies on a pedestal, and if these speculations (which usually involve literalizing very flowery, figurative, poetic language) conflict with very plain, very didactic statements that nobody could misunderstand, they will cling tenaciously to their prophetic guesses and seek to undermine plain statements. Watch and see! Such a manner of exegesis, in my opinion, is haphazard at best. We shall see what path he follows.

The Imminence of the Kingdom in the First Century



I am affirming the first-century i
mminency of the kingdom. I affirm that EVERY MENTION of a time-factor and the kingdom of Jesus Christ implies the imminence, the nearness, the closeness of its appearing.


The kingdom of Jesus Christ - and the imminent nature of it - was the paramount subject of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Indeed, He preached "the gospel of the kingdom" (Mark 1: 14). First, note the proclamations of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ:


Matt 3: 1, 2: "… John the Baptist came, preaching … saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near"." (KJV: "at hand")


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


Mark 1: 14, 15: "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.


Question #1: WHAT time was fulfilled? I'll submit that Jesus hearkened right back to Daniel's prophecy in Dan 2 (and other prophesies) and emphatically stated, "The 'TIME' is 'fulfilled'." I again ask my opponent, “WHAT … time … was … fulfilled?” I would like to see a thorough answer to that.


According to Daniel's interpretation in Dan 2, have the following:



Thus, the promised kingdom was to arrive at some point between 30BC and 397AD. Christ was saying the kingdom is "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom is at hand" in about 30AD. My opponent speculates, to accommodate his prophetic theories, that the kingdom which was "near" and "at hand" in about 30AD has not shown up for 1,884 years, even though the time was fulfilled way back yonder! Why is that? Do "near", "nigh", and "at hand" mean 1884+ years, by any stretch? The phrase “at hand” is translated from a form of eggys which means imminent and soon to come to pass (with reference to time) and near or nigh (with reference to place).1

********

Then again, Jesus said in Mark 9: 1, "... some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."


SOME of those people to whom Jesus was speaking were to see -to visualize - the arrival of the promised kingdom before they "tasted death." If Jesus told the truth, where are these folks today? They’re all dead – and as per my opponent, they all died without seeing the promised kingdom. It won't do to assert that they kinda-sorta caught a winking glimpse of the kingdom at the transfiguration or ascension, yet that is the usual dodge that these guys make. If so, WHY were they still expectant of the kingdom AFTER at least the transfiguration?


Another thing: the kingdom was to come when the power came.


Note Luke 24: 49, "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry you in the city of Jerusalem, until you are endued with power from on high."


So the disciples would be in Jerusalem when the power came, and when the power came, the kingdom would come.


And again: Acts 1: 8, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."


Thus, the coming of power was synonymous with the coming of the Spirit, and it would all happen in Jerusalem.



Pentecost


Now observe Acts 2:

1. Where? Jerusalem ("Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.)


2. When? During the days of the Roman Empire when the power came


3. Who? The disciples and apostles to whom Jesus said, "shall not taste death"


4. What happened? "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." There’s the Spirit, and there’s the power.


5. What did Peter say about it? THIS - what you are seeing ... THIS - what you are hearing - is THAT which Joel prophesied.


Peter said, "This is that." My opponent will most likely say, "No, it wasn’t." We shall see. Were the events of Acts 2 the fulfillment of Joel 2?


Thus, we have this situation concerning the imminent appearance of the kingdom:


1. To come in the days of the Roman Emperors

2. The time was fulfilled - it was near
3. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by John
4. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by Jesus
5. Preached as "at hand" by the twelve disciples (Matt 10: 7, Luke 9: 2)
6. Preached as "nigh unto you" by the seventy (Luke 10: 9)

7. Awaited by Joseph of Arimethea (Mark 15: 43)
8. Disciples were to pray for it (Matt 6: 10)

9. Would appear before some standing with the Lord would die
10. Would come with power, power would come with the Spirit

11. Would all occur in Jerusalem

12. Peter was granted the keys to it


Alright, the Spirit came on Pentecost. The power came on Pentecost. They were in Jerusalem. Peter had the keys. Some would not taste death til it came. It had been "at hand". Now comes a modernist and says, "Why, the kingdom that was prophesied and heralded has not yet appeared!" Pffffffft.



A few questions:


Awriternamedred, why don’t you tell us what the word eggys as used in, say, Matt 4: 17 means to you? What did the statement, "The kingdom is at hand" mean to first-century hearers? Does the word eggys mean imminent, soon to come to pass?



Do you simply stand up and imply that John, Jesus, the Twelve, the Seventy and everyone else misled everyone?


Were John, Jesus, the Twelve, and the Seventy all misled?


Did Paul state that he was in the kingdom in Col 1: 13?


Did John state that he was in the kingdom in Rev 1: 9?


Did Paul state that the Colossian Christians were in the kingdom in Col 1: 13?


If (1) John, Jesus, the Twelve, and the Seventy unanimously stated that the kingdom was “soon to come to pass”, then (2) Paul and John stated that they were in the kingdom, (3) what possesses someone to determine that the kingdom really was not soon to come to pass, and Paul and John were not really, literally in the kingdom?


No, the Apostle Peter possessed the keys to the kingdom. Did he use them yet? I wonder. Has Peter possessed the keys to the kingdom for nearly 2,000 years without ever using them? I say he inserted that first key on Pentecost and thus opened the doors of the kingdom to the Jews. About seven years later, he inserted the other key and opened the door to Cornelius and thus the Gentiles. I actually do not know what my opponent's thoughts are on this subject, but I know they will be governed by his speculations on prophesy.

That’s all this will amount to: multiple plain, didactic statements versus prophetic speculations. Every millennialist must, absolutely must, become a professional prophesy-interpreter – and every last one of them will deny dozens of literal statements in order to continue speculating. Watch and see. I implore the reader to observe that when Paul plainly says, “I am in the kingdom”, my opponent will, in the end, say “No, you weren’t.” When Jesus, the nobleman in Luke 19, is described as going away to receive a kingdom, will my opponent inform us that He is coming back to establish it? I think so.

I will make a quick comment on I Pet 2: 9, "But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" with emphasis on the word basileion (translated royal) which carries the meaning of "kingly, belonging to a king".2 Thus Christians are described as a "belonging to a king" priesthood - but as per my opponent we have no reigning king! We are a royal priesthood - without the royalty. Most premillennialists conjecture that Jesus Christ is a mere crown prince currently.


I will pause so that my opponent can deny these affirmations and deal with the questions that were posed (not all of them – only the ones in red).

1 http://biblehub.com......

2 http://www.biblestudytools.com......
Awriternamedred

Con

I want to first off thank Anna for giving me an opportunity to defend my point and for the sport of this discussion, being my first debate on this site I ask for the patience of my peers here to be lenient on my response formats as I won't make it as pretty as Anna now let's begin.

First Anna I do consider myself a premillenial student due to the prophecies stated in the old and new testament. However you must question then understand what is a kingdom? Is it a physical or heavenly manifestation? Your argument brings valid points but you are missing several clues as to what rings true.

In the OT psalms 22:28 it states he is the governor of all nations and all the kingdoms are his. My first question is why would the OT speak of him ruling or reigning if he hasn't arrived yet? Perhaps one could make the argument that his kingdom began when the earth and all its inhabitants were created in 6 days(6000 years). He began to reign/rule. Yet deception crept in the garden to deceive eve and Adam institute sin and destroy the life we had. In a sense his kingdom began then because he did rule all.

My argument is detailed but quite simple let me show you then I will answer your questions.

Let's start in Rev 3:12
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Now what new Jerusalem is being referred to here? One that came out of heaven? I know the son of man came down from heaven but not the kingdom yet.

In Rev 11:15 it states: And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Now the seven trump has not yet been blown or it would nullify the prophecy.

Rev 19:11-16: And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND Lord OF LORDS

This has not yet come to pass as we are still living in earth under sin

Rev 21:1-5: And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful

Do people still die? In this kingdom referenced no.

Peter and Paul made a good reference to fulfilling the law here as well as speaking into the second coming and the new kingdom in the following scriptures:
Romans 13:10-12
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light
Who was sent to teach us the love of salvation and hope of everlasting life?

1 cor 15:21-26 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death

I ask you again is death destroyed?

1 thes 4:13-18 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words

Has this come to pass? Are we still on earth?

Tit 2:13-14 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Who's appearing?

Heb 11:13-16 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

He prepared a city for who?

2 pet 3:8-13 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Do you understand yet? It hasn't 2000 years to him but 2 days.

John 18:36 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.

Translation: If this was his heavenly kingdom he would not allow himself to be taken.

You see it is very simple the kingdom must come so his will can be done(eliminating sin and death) on earth as it is in heaven(Perfection, no satan, total dominion established).

So his rule is here but so is sin.
The keys that were given you mentioned were not keys to unlock a physical literal door to the kingdom no. They were the keys to salvation the knowledge of salvation. Do you think Jesus walked around with a spare set of keys saying here guys this is the key set to my house come and go as you please but let no one else in? No that's silly.

The kingdom is where you are confused.

Your question on eggys? Matt 4:17 mentions no eggys in the kjv

I await your reply.
Debate Round No. 1
annanicole

Pro

Since the main points and questions of the affirmative were left untouched, I have no problem assuming the role of the negative and demonstrating that not a single passage introduced by my opponent sustains his case. I shall let the first affirmative stand as it is, and perchance it will be answered in the next negative.

My opponent states, “In the OT psalms 22:28 it states he is the governor of all nations and all the kingdoms are his. My first question is why would the OT speak of him ruling or reigning if he hasn't arrived yet?”

The answer lies in the fact that oftentimes the Messianic aspects of a prophecy are spoken in the past tense or present tense, even though they are yet future.

In Isa 53, the birth, suffering, and death of the Messiah are all discussed in the past tense – even though the coming of the Lord was hundreds of years in the future. Thus the question concerning Psalm 22 is but a quibble.

My opponent’s allusions to the Apocalypse (3: 12, 11:15, and 19:11-16) are an attempt to create an anachronism: the prologue of the Apocalypse (and any post-exilic Jewish apocalypse) sets the stage for the vision and specifically states that the signs, symbols, and figures of the vision are descriptive of events that were to shortly come to pass because the time was at hand – way back then.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass … keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Rev 1: 1-3)

Does my opponent wish to inform us that even though the time was at hand in the first century, and even though the events depicted in visional symbols, signs and figures were to shortly come to pass, the bulk of it has not yet been fulfilled? I stated previously that a premillennialist will latch onto the most highly figurative, symbolic language imaginable and ignore dozens and dozens of plain, didactic statements which contradict his speculations. The impression of imminent fulfillments continues throughout the Apocalypse:

2:10: “ye shall have tribulation 10 days.”

2:25: “hold fast till I come”

3:11: “I come quickly, hold fast”.

6:10: “how long … yet a little while”.

12:12: “a short time.”

16:15: “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments…”

17:10: “and they are seven kings, the five are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a little while.”

22:6: “shortly come to pass”

22:7: “And behold, I come quickly”

22:10: “the time is at hand”

22:12: “Behold I come quickly”.

22:20: “I come quickly.”

My opponent's theories reduce to meaningless every allusion to imminence in the Apocalypse.

My opponent cites I Cor 15 and asks, “I ask you again is death destroyed?”

Certainly death is not yet destroyed, but it will be at the resurrection – and the passage states that Jesus must reign until death is destroyed. Thus, Jesus Christ is reigning now! There is no idea of a future kingdom (and no millennium) in I Cor 15 – or anywhere else: when Jesus returns, all in their graves will rise (John 5: 28-29) with the dead in Christ rising first. Right there is the destruction of the last enemy, death. Right there marks the END of the reign of Jesus Christ, not the BEGINNING, as Christ delivers up His kingdom to the Father. Note the contrasts:

I Cor 15: When the last enemy is destroyed, Christ will deliver the kingdom to the Father

Premill: When the last enemy is destroyed, Christ will set up His kingdom

I Cor 15: Christ must reign until death is destroyed

Premill: Christ begins His reign when death is destroyed

Luke 19: 2 states that Jesus Christ, the nobleman, went away to receive a kingdom.

Premill: He is coming back to establish it.

Do you mean to imply that the destruction of death, the last enemy, will trigger the setting up of the kingdom? The passage states that the destruction of death merely triggers a change in location (from earth to heaven) and ownership (from the Son to the Father).

I cannot conceive of a more Bible-contradicting notion that the idea that Jesus will return to earth to set up a kingdom that He failed to establish the first time around – and that’s about all this “future kingdom theory” amounts to.

My opponent cited 1 Thes 4: 13-18, although I have no idea why, as it describes the same events as I Corinthians 15. Both passages describe the future resurrection of the dead, both good and evil, at which time Jesus Christ ceases His reign and delivers up the kingdom to the Father. My opponent points out that we are still on earth. Yes, we are. Death has not been destroyed. And the point? I repeat: the abolition of death marks the end of Christ’s reign, not the beginning.

My opponent cites II Pet 3, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” and reckons that 2,000 years equals two days to the Lord. That’s a rather peculiar way of looking at things.

Jesus told His disciples, after His resurrection and in His glorified state, “For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” (Acts 1: 5) How many thousands of years does “not many days” equal? Tell us, please.

You seem to think you have a yet-future 365,000-day reign in Revelation 20, but each one of those days equals one thousand years? That’s a 365,000,000-year reign, literally!

My opponent asks, “Do you understand yet?”

I understand that you are selectively perverting II Pet 3: 8 and trying to establish some nonexistent rule that even you will not consistently follow. You cannot invoke an imaginary rule based upon a metaphorical figure of speech when it suits you, then disregard the rule when it turns on you. In fact, you will disregard it more than you will adhere to it. “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” is simply a metaphor employed to illustrate the fact that an eternal being is not governed by nor amenable to time, strictly speaking, as it applies solely to Himself. The passage is not an “apply when needed” panacea that is only invoked a speculator needs his time limit extended exponentially.

My opponent says, “The keys that were given you mentioned were not keys to unlock a physical literal door to the kingdom no.”

Oh, c’mon. The keys are figurative just as the door is figurative – and the fact remains that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom.

My opponent states, “They were the keys to salvation, the knowledge of salvation.”

Not exactly, but close enough. The keys were the terms of admission into the body or realm of the saved, i. e. the terms of the gospel plan of salvation. However, the body of the saved is equivalent to the kingdom of God. I cite again Col 1: 12-13:

“… giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.”

Paul and those Colossians had been delivered out of the power of darkness (the kingdom of Satan), and translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, yet you find yourself denying the current existence of that very kingdom.

I ask again, “Did Peter utilize the keys to the kingdom, whether literal or figurative, or not? If not, could you tell us when he will unlock those doors, whether literal or figurative, so that men may enter?”

My opponent cites John 18:36 and states, “If this was his heavenly kingdom he would not allow himself to be taken.”

Who mentioned heaven? One day yet future, the kingdom will be delivered up to the Father and thus will change residences. So? We are talking about the present. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of – not after the fashion of – this world.” His kingdom was to be in the world, but not of the world. This meaning is assured by His next statement: “For then would my servants fight.” You miss the entire point. You seem to think that if Jesus indeed set up His kingdom in the first century, then His servants would engage in carnal warfare. No, it means that the kingdom of Jesus Christ would be totally set apart and distinct from the earthly kingdoms with which His audience was familiar. Its borders are not set by the transit or theodolite. Its citizens do not fight with the sword. The territory is spiritual – the hearts and minds of men wherever they are.

I invite my opponent to back up and deal one-by-one with the statements and questions of the first affirmative. That is the task of the negative. I assumed the role of the negative simply to have something to do. Hopefully my opponent will back up, re-read the first affirmative, and really take on the role of the negative.


Awriternamedred

Con

If you review the response you can easily see the highlighted questions answered. Never the less thank you for your hasty response.

My opponent doesn't seem to acknowledge the reign of God in the beginning of time. I think we fail to realize he had a throne lucifer coveted. He had to ban and cast lucifer down in the lake of fire for punishment but he had a throne and a kingdom to rule.

I ask do you acknowledge he controlled all before and during creation?

How can there be a kingdom if Christ hasn't arrived?

It's simple the kingdom he came to teach on and establish WAS his dominion over sin. Since the great deception at eden his kingdom on earth was plagued with sin. The latter kingdom of heaven will not come into play until after the 1st resurrection has taken place.

To say that the kingdom is coming shortly after his death on that generation CANNOT be proven only assumed. There was no historic date or event so significant of this stature that history forgot it. It was and still is a prophecy.

My opponent foolishly cites prophecies of revelation and the end times that must happen. I ask my opponent again. What tribulation of 10 days has taken place in history so great that all these prophecies may be fulfilled? It has not happened and once again CANNOT be proved.

As I stated before to my opponents affirmative there has always been a reign since the creation yet reigning the kingdom in the first century AD would mean there was NO kingdom prior to AD, which in turn means the world and all its inhabitants didn't belong to the lord which destroys all biblical credit of establishing God's omnipotence to this point.

1 cor 15 is pure prophecy if you read the entire chapter it is all future tense. It states in v. 50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom so if all men die we must be resurrected to receive it.
If we have to wait until the 1st resurrection(post great tribulation, post abomination of desolation) to receive the kingdom then what kingdom could he possibly reign if no subjects live there?

The only kingdom it's referencing is his dominion over sin and his power over the world. With Death still being much in play and no resurrection in sight it is easy to state he reigns a worldly kingdom now. Yet let's go a step further. If my opponent wishes to be so literal I ask what kingdom on earth is being ruled specifically?

Not only that DEFINE kingdom?

In rev 11:15 it states all kingdoms shall become his so how can this be true if some earthly kingdoms still ignore or do not recognize him as king?

Let's review this as well: Rev: 4-9And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they LIVED and REIGNED with Christ a thousand years(How can his servants live so long if death is still relevant? Can there be a different type of death other than the literal death?). But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

You see Christ reigns 1000 years with his true servants(Once again has not come to pass). This is the first resurrection he must reign these 1000 years with his servants but how can they reign with him if they are in a physical body we already established you need a celestial body to live with him in 1 cor 15:40 and you need to make the first resurrection so how would that work if he established the literal kingdom in the first century? It can't be logical. The only way possible is for the kingdom to equate to his dominion and power not an established throne(The only way to support your theory is if we had celestial bodies in which we dont). The line of confusion is thin but it is easily understood if you do not over complicate topics such as this.

As far as the thousand years equals to one day to him you have to use the calculation in good context seeing that the bible references days, weeks, years several times and cannot be literal thousands of years every time. If that was the case Noah would've been on the ark 40,000 years and christ would be resting 3,000 years but no man has outlived methuselah. Yet as far as "at hand" isn't a metric that can be measured. If it's stated an eternal being is not bound by time then it contradicts my opponents argument as well seeing that this eternal being is the one that gave us the scriptures that guide us what time specifically did at hand mean? 2 days, 2 months, 20 years? You simply cannot prove it.

The keys were exactly as I stated the knowledge to enter the kingdom and pass it on(teach) to the others who were without hope. Of COURSE he utilized the keys(Taught) but he never reached the kingdom of the latter days because it has not arrived. Rev 21: 2 cites: And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband(Prophetic no holy city has descended). Why would he be shown a prophecy of a new kingdom if paul had already entered it? Why wouldn't John be admitted either?

As far as John 18:36 goes my opponent only furthers my statement by acknowledging "my servants would fight" What servants? The angels? Of course his servants on earth were the disciples and one did fight in a lost cause. Yet if his angels fought it would be no fight it would be just that pure carnage(Ex 23:23 For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.

2 chr 32:21And the Lord sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword.

isa:37-36.Then the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses).

Thus the kingdom(dominion/rule)has always been in existence(creation). Yet the kingdom that exists after the 1000 years, after prophecy fulfillment, after 1st century AD has not come into play your argument is completely assumptive with no historical evidence. If my opponent argues and states the kingdom has arrived then define "which" kingdom? My opponent is implicating otherwise to state his kingdom is here is not sufficient enough please I ask you to specify and that seems to be the issue of concern. I have stated the kingdoms I refer to.

I await your reply.
Debate Round No. 2
annanicole

Pro

My opponent says, “If you review the response you can easily see the highlighted questions answered.”

Well, the very first highlighted question was:


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.


He says he’s answered it. I can only say that not only I, but two others, carefully read his reply, and none of us can see his answer. If anyone else can find it, kindly notify me in the comments section.


*****


My opponent laments, “My opponent doesn't seem to acknowledge the reign of God in the beginning of time. I think we fail to realize he had a throne lucifer coveted.”

My opponent thinks that the same kingdom has always been here. No, the kingdom of Jesus Christ was new, all new, n-e-w. Had my opponent been standing there with John or Jesus when they said, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” he could have corrected them by asserting that the kingdom has been here off and on since the days of Adam.

“Which kingdom?” is plainly stated in the proposition, and I’m questioning if you even read it: “The kingdom of Jesus Christ was brought into existence ...” It does not good at all for you to backtrack now and say, “Well, a kingdom of sorts always existed because God always ruled.” That’s not going to work. Further, I even clarified it in the definition of terms:


Kingdom: an organization, either temporal or spiritual, governed by a reigning monarch


Of Jesus Christ
: that is, inaugurated, belonging to, and ruled by Jesus Christ.”


That is so evident that no one can miss it.

*****


My opponent states, “As I stated before to my opponents affirmative there has always been a reign since the creation yet reigning the kingdom in the first century AD would mean there was NO kingdom prior to AD”

Sir, the proposition does not merely say “kingdom”; it plainly says, “kingdom of Jesus Christ”. And I say without hesitation that the kingdom of Jesus Christ – the kingdom which the Messiah came to establish – could not have possibly existed prior to the coming of Christ.

What you are doing is this: you are going from pre-creation to Adam, then from Adam to Moses, then from Moses to Christ, then from Christ to the present, and implying that they were all the kingdom of Jesus Christ or some form of it. That’s not true at all!


*****


Awriternamedred: “The latter kingdom of heaven will not come into play until after the 1st resurrection has taken place.”

Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5: 28-29)

There is only one literal, bodily resurrection and one final judgment. How did you come up with two out of John 5? There is an hour in which all shall hear his voice. It looks like you have come up with two different hours with a long span in-between, one for “they that have done good” and another at a different time for “they that have done evil.” It is going to take some theological juggling to get two hours out of John 5.


*****

My opponent states, “It states in v. 50 (of 1 cor 15) that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom so if all men die we must be resurrected to receive it.”

I Cor 15: 50 states, “...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

I Cor 15: 50 is referring to heaven, and refers to that time period after the resurrection, after the last enemy is destroyed, Jesus Christ will have ceased His reign, and delivered up the kingdom to the Father. I already mentioned that I Cor 15 refers to a time when the kingdom merely changes residence and ownership.


*****


Awriternamedred: “so if all men die we must be resurrected to receive it.”

At the time we are resurrected, the last enemy will be destroyed, and Jesus Christ will cease His reign. Yet you are claiming that we enter the kingdom of Jesus Christ at the resurrection. Jesus ceases reigning about the time we all enter the kingdom? That alone hints that your guesses and speculations on Revelation are anachronistic.

When Paul said, “I am in the kingdom” … when Paul told the Colossians, “You are in the kingdom” … when John said “I am in the kingdom” … they did not mean that they or their readers were in heaven. When Jesus said, “Repent, for the kingdom is at hand,” He did not mean heaven was at hand. Neither Jesus nor His disciples nor His apostles scurried about misleading people in that fashion.


*****


My opponent says, “You see Christ reigns 1000 years with his true servants (Once again has not come to pass).”

The passage says that the beheaded martyrs lived and reigned with Him a thousand years. Is that literal? You won’t take it literally yourself! You include many others in this supposed reign. Another thing: you have them reigning a thousand years – then ceasing to reign. To be consistent, you could at least have them also living a thousand years – then ceasing to live.


*****


Awriternamedred: “This is the first resurrection”

The first resurrection is the resurrection of a cause – the same type of resurrection as is found in Ezekiel 37, a portion of which is cited below:

Then He said unto me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried and our hope is lost. We are cut off from our parts.’ Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

Do you claim that is a literal resurrection? The 1st resurrection of the Apocalypse, therefore, is – or at least the possibility exists that it is - a resurrection of a righteous cause and a peculiar and special reign of the martyrs as their blood is vindicated as the persecuted, downtrodden church emerges victorious.


*****


My opponent’s reasoning is this: “you need a celestial body to live with him in 1 cor 15:40 and you need to make the 1st resurrection so how would that work if he established the literal kingdom in the 1st century? It can't be logical.”

See what you are doing? In case you do not realize it, you are going back and reinterpreting the whole of the New Testament based upon your own speculations regarding highly figurative language in Revelation – figurative language which depicts events that were to shortly come to pass back in the first century.


*****


Questions for My Opponent


1. (a) Did John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the seventy commissioned by Jesus, and the twelve all proclaim that the “kingdom of heaven is at hand”? (b) If so, did they mislead all of their listeners?


2. 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 visualize the arrival of the promised kingdom before they died. If Jesus told the truth, where are these folks today?


You said you had answered that, but no one can find the answer! Could you name these people and provide their addresses?


3. (a) Did Paul state that he and the Colossian Christians were in the kingdom in Col 1: 13? (b) Did John state that he was in the kingdom in Rev 1: 9?

You said you had answered. No one, including me, can see your answer. I’m not asking if you believe it; I’m asking if they said it.


4. IF “yes” to the prior two questions, could you explain how Paul, John, the Colossians, and the first readers of Revelation were in the kingdom, yet you teach that it has not yet appeared – and explain it without depending entirely on your guesses on the meanings of highly figurative apocalyptic language in Revelation?


5. (a) Does John 5: 28-29 state that there will come an hour when all in their graves, both good and evil, will come forth? Is that what you believe, or do you have to concoct two different literal, bodily resurrections?

(b) Is the day or hour spoken of in John 5 and I Cor 15 the same day, or are you having to divorce the two based upon your guesses on Revelation?


6. (a) Does Ezekiel 37 speak of a resurrection? (b) If so, is it an actual, literal, bodily resurrection? (c) Is it possible to have a resurrection of a cause?


7. Are constructing your entire position on the kingdom based upon your own guesses and speculations concerning the highly figurative Jewish apocalyptic literature of John’s vision, the Apocalypse?


8. (a) 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?

(b) If so, will Jesus Christ reign up until that point – or begin His reign after that point?

(c) If so, will Jesus Christ deliver up the kingdom at that point – or set it up on earth?


Those questions are right to-the-point and aren’t copyrighted. You can copy and paste them and provide your answer, usually a yes or no, to each one of them under the appropriate question. Please do not ignore the bulk of them, then claim they are all answered as MadCornish and Dogknox do in the Forum Section.

If you intend to successfully deny the affirmative, you cannot devote half of your reply and three-fourths of your theology to your guesses on Revelation. John said two thousand years ago that the time was at hand – way back then. You tell us that it wasn’t! John said, “The time is fulfilled” – now. You tell us, “No, it’s not quite fulfilled yet!” Then you start guessing on tribulations, beasts, stars, moons, thousand years, chains, pits, and dragons, and ask, “Has this happened?” or “Has that happened?” I can tell you right now that I believe that every bit of the Apocalypse has been fulfilled, with the exception of a possibly a few things in Rev 22.


Thank you, and I await your reply and answers.

Awriternamedred

Con

pponent says, "If you review the response you can easily see the highlighted questions answered."

Well, thevery firsthighlighted question was:

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.

It's actually quite simple and John already answered it in v.7 stating there is one coming mightier than I(The prophecy of John the Baptist is stated in Mal. 3:1-2:"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:R06;

The time being fulfilled is John the baptists preaching coming to an end and the beginning of the teaching Jesus sought to do with the gospel/His ministry has now began. 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.

.

Questions for My Opponent

1. (a) Did John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the seventy commissioned by Jesus, and the twelve all proclaim that the "kingdom of heaven is at hand"? (b) If so, did they mislead all of their listeners?

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.

2. Jesus said in Mark 9: 1, "... some of them that stand here, whichshall not taste of death, till they haveseen the kingdom of God come with power."

Let's take a look at Luke 9:27-37:"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said. While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen. And it came to pass, that on the next day, when they were come down from the hill, much people met him.R06;

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.

3. (a) Did Paul state that he and the Colossian Christians were in the kingdom in Col 1: 13? (b) Did John state that he was in the kingdom in Rev 1: 9?

Let's begin at v.12 Giving thanks unto the father which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light(The truth and understanding). Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness(the world) and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear son.

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.

For reference let's view ps 19:7 "the law of the lord is perfect CONVERTING the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple."

The law and word are one in the same with the Lord and it is a changing power that can give you an understanding(Light) like no other."

Rev 1:9 John is simply speaking as the brother and teacher of the word nothing more."

4. IF "yes" to the prior two questions, could you explain how Paul, John, the Colossians, and the first readers of Revelation were in the kingdom, yet you teach that it has not yet appeared " and explain it without depending entirely on your guesses on the meanings of highly figurative apocalyptic language in Revelation?

Read prior statement please.

5. (a) Does John 5: 28-29 state that there will comean hourwhen all in their graves, both good and evil, will come forth? Is that what you believe, or do you have to concoct two different literal, bodily resurrections?

John 5 refers to the first ressurection when judgement will begin. It is a bodily ressurection."

(b) Is thedayorhourspoken of in John 5 and I Cor 15 thesame day, or are you having to divorce the two based upon your guesses on Revelation?

John 5 and 1 cor 15 are the same event . John 5 refers to the 1st resurrection and judgement of the living and dead. 1 cor 15 refers to the 1000 years of peace that take place in Jesus"

6. (a) Does Ezekiel 37 speak of a resurrection? (b) If so, is it an actual, literal, bodily resurrection? (c) Is it possible to have a resurrection of a cause?

The dry bones in the valley is another topic but it does slightly brush on the topic of the first ressurection here:"And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.R06;

This is still in reference to the first resurrection.

R06;
7. Are constructing your entire position on the kingdom based upon your own guesses and speculations concerning the highly figurative Jewish apocalyptic literature of John"s vision, the Apocalypse?

My position is based on more than just Johns vision but let me ask you this instead does the lion eat straw to this day? Or will the lion eat flesh?

Let's take a look at Isa 11:1-12:

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.R06;
R06;

This prophecy will be fulfilled after the return of Christ. To say this has already came to pass discredits Isaiah the prophet and all biblical knowledge associated with him. This is plain as day so I ask you again does the lion eat straw.

8. (a) Based upon I Cor 15, is thehour in which all in their graveshear His voice andcome forthsynonymous with thedestruction of the last enemy, death?

No. The destruction of death happens after the 1000 years of peace. To answer your next two questions you need to have a firm understanding of what the great tribulation truly is. The 1000 years of peace IS Christ's specific reign that is mentioned for his kingdom the reign ends after the 1000 years because there will be no need/use for a kingdom once we all become celestial beings and can no longer sin. The father and son will reign as the temple but their will be no kingdom needed once the last enemy is destroyed. "

Review Rev 21:21-27

And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."

So I hope that answers my dear opponents questions. Here are mine:

1. Has Israel been gathered? If so does the lion eat straw?
2. If the Kingdom has come then when exactly did the apocalypse take place?
3. 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.
4. Who made the first resurrection if it already came to pass and if it has why are we still living and dying?
5. Define the kingdom either it is spiritual, heavenly, or physical.
Debate Round No. 3
annanicole

Pro

“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.

*****


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 a five-day period? His position depends upon a long shot, and in the Biblical depiction of the transfiguration, the kingdom is not even mentioned.

*****


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:

*****


“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!”

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.

*****



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?

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.

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?

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?

*****


“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.

*****


“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!

*****


“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 – of a righteous, holy cause such as actually happened when Christianity triumphed overs its Jewish and Roman persecutors. As far as the literal, bodily resurrection of all the dead persons, it has not occurred.

I have said since my first statement that you will deny or contort plain statements surrounded by very literal language (which you have done) in order to appeal to very figurative language.

*****


“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 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.

*****


“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.

*****



I would like to point out that of my opponent's questions, four of the five come directly from the Book of Revelation - yet he claims that he does not run to apocalytpic language for his eschatology! My opponent teaches two literal, bodily resurrections separated by a large span of time. The Bible teaches no such thing! To "prove" it, he will run to .... apocalytic literature. High figures. Heavy symbolism. Then he'll deny plain statements elsewhere.


I will pause to give my opponent a chance to respond. Thank you.


1 http://www.blueletterbible.org...

2 http://www.blueletterbible.org...

3 http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Awriternamedred

Con

"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. "
Debate Round No. 4
annanicole

Pro

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power. And after six days, Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.” (Mark 9: 1-2)

I alleged that my opponent believes that Mark 9: 1 was fulfilled by Mark 9: 2. He does! He objected to my statement, “My opponent must claim that three people ‘perceived it’ five days later!” Make it six days, then. Scholars differ due to variations in Jewish reckoning of time.


He says, “I have not nor will I mention ‘five days later’. The kingdom they saw was simply a vision nothing more.”


Then you can mention six days, for it can’t be any longer than that. I maintain that Jesus’s statement in Mark 9: 1 implies that some in His audience would die before the kingdom came. If so, my opponent’s position demands that some in the audience died within a six-day period.

Peter, James, and John did not see the kingdom in a vision or elsewhere at the transfiguration scene. The Bible neither states nor implies such a thing. My opponent totally ignores the meaning of eido which as a rule means to perceive, to know. By his reasoning, a blind man could not perceive the coming of the kingdom.

*****

Concerning Col 1: 13, my opponent says, “Your response here is meaningless as you do not infuse it with scriptures or evidence of what Paul truly meant.”

Assume? The word translated answers to methistemi, a verb which means to transpose, transfer, remove from one place to another and speaks of a change of situation or place.1 That is what Paul meant. The problem is this: Paul said that he and the Colossians had been transferred from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and your position is that the kingdom of Jesus Christ did not even exist at the time.

*****

Awriternamedred: “Your ASV text is the problem it seems”


I have no problem in stating that the KJV translators mistranslated Rev 1: 6. The 1st-century Christian were not kings, but collectively they were a kingdom – and that is what John said. Christians are servants in the kingdom, not kings.

*****

Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”


Awriternamedred: “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.”


Response: That sounds to me like a doctrine of second chances akin to purgatory. Where do you see such a doctrine in John 5?

1. All in the tombs hear His voice

2. All are resurrected

3. There are but two choices: life (Heaven) or damnation (Hell)

You cannot find your “those that do not make the cut will be left” in there at all – or anywhere else until you run across it in the types, figures, and symbols of the Apocalypse.


*****

Regarding “the kingdom is at hand” and “shortly come to pass”, my opponent says, “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. Could "at hand" mean anything of course it could yet if you cannot pinpoint an exact time you fail miserably with this attempt.”


Let’s start at the end. Actually, he believes that “at hand” and “shortly come to pass” are totally meaningless. When Paul said, “The time of my departure is at hand”, he meant nothing – as per my opponent. “At hand” and “shortly come to pass” refer to imminency and have never once referred to a period of more than a hundred years in the entire Bible. I stated that “at hand” might mean a day, a week, a month, a year, or a decade. It could mean several decades. It is an indefinite but brief period of time. My opponent wants me to take an indefinite descriptor, try to ascribe an exact time to it – and if I can’t, then he says I have failed! Pfffffffffft. Let him find a single instance of the phrase meaning two thousand years. A thousand? Five hundred? Any takers?

“because for the work of Christ he came nigh unto death, hazarding his life to supply that which was lacking in your service toward me.” (Philippians 2: 30)

“Came nigh unto” is eggisen, the same word as in, for instance, Matt 4: 17. Does my opponent mean to tell us that it “could mean anything”? Land’s sakes, it means the man was close to death, that death was imminent.

The fact that "at hand" means an indefinite brief period of time does not give my opponent license to claim that it is meaningless.

*****

Awriternamedred: “Secondly you have Noah's Ark. Have you forgotten God's power here when he turned the most vicious of beasts into herbivores?”


My opponent apparently does not credit Noah with having enough gumption of separate tigers from wildebeests. Almost as powerful as God’s power is the power of my opponent’s imagination. Does my opponent speculate that piranhas attacked and ate other fish prior to the flood, then magically stopped, then cranked their naughty behavior up again at some point post-flood?


*****

Awriternamedred: “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”


Anna: ‘Tis not I who is turning the figurative into literal, but you. He thinks that if the lions aren’t out grazing in the pasture with the cows, then the kingdom of Christ isn’t here! As proof of the concept:


Awriternamedred: “This is a sign that the lord has returned as well as the passage in Joel 2:28-32”


Anna: See? The apostle Peter proclaimed on Pentecost that what the people were seeing then and there was a fulfillment of Joel 2: 28-32. He even quoted it to them and said, “This is that.” Ordinarily, if an inspired apostle said, “This fulfills that”, nobody would question it. My opponent says it didn’t! He reads Joel 2: 28-32 and thinks it is yet future. Why? Well, he reasons, the sun has not turned into darkness yet. The moon hasn’t been turned into blood. Yet, Peter says, “This is that!” The truth is in Joel 2, the sun and moon are representative of the Jewish authorities and dignitaries, including the high priest and Sanhedrin, who would be judged along with their entire system – and rejected – during the next several decades, beginning at Pentecost.

*****

Awriternamedred: “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 …”


I would beg, even plead, with my opponent, after this debate is over, to please read some other post-exilic Jewish apocalyptic literature. I fail to see how someone could expect to make sense out of the Apocalypse of John if he has never studied apocalyptic literature in general. The thousand years in Revelation 20 is not literal – in fact, apocalypses are not literal. By definition, (1) they employ grotesque figures, high typology, and extreme symbolism and (2) the prologue of an Apocalypse will always be literal. It has to be, or else the reader would become a victim of his own imagination. Anyway, my response to these calculations is: the thousand years of Revelation 20 is merely symbolic of a long, complete period of time. It is not literal.

“For every beast of the forest is mine, And the cattle upon a thousand hills.” (Ps 50: 10)

There are, literally, tens of thousands of hills. We know that God owns the cattle upon a thousand of those hills. Who owns the rest?

“Remember his covenant forever, The word which he commanded to a thousand generations” (I Chron 16: 15)

What happens at the 1,001st generation?


Awriternamedred: “death would then be vanquished much like your credibility to this point”


Response: Uh-huh. I’m not the one who desires to make a thousand hills, a thousand generations, and a thousand years literal. You do, apparently, and you can accept the consequences. You based your eschatology upon Revelation 20, and this is the result.

*****

I shall close exactly where I began, since the premise has yet to be disproven – despite our anticipated excursions into the figurative language of Revelation.


1. To come in the days of the Roman Emperors


2. The time was fulfilled - it was near


3. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by John


4. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by Jesus


5. Preached as "at hand" by the twelve disciples (Matt 10: 7, Luke 9: 2)


6. Preached as "nigh unto you" by the seventy (Luke 10: 9)


7. Awaited by Joseph of Arimethea (Mark 15: 43)


8. Disciples were to pray for it (Matt 6: 10)


9. Would appear before some standing with the Lord would die (Mark 9: 1)


10. Would come with power, power would come with the Spirit (Mark 9: 1)


11. Would all occur in Jerusalem

12. Peter was granted the keys to it

PENTECOST


13. After, Pentecost, Paul said he was in the kingdom (Col 1: 13)

14. After Pentecost, Paul said the Colossians were in the kingdom (Col 1: 13)

15. After Pentecost, John said he was in the kingdom (Rev 1: 6, 9)

16. After Pentecost, John said his first readers of Revelation were in the kingdom (Rev 1: 6, 9)

17. After Pentecost, Peter said we are a royal or kingly priesthood (I Pet 2: 9)

18. After Pentecost, John said that Jesus is the ruler of the earth (Rev 1: 5-6)



pre-kingdom-pentecost-time-chart.gif

That seems plain enough. My opponent largely talks of lions grazing in pastures, a thousand hills, generations, and years, two literal bodily resurrections and the like – and concludes that he himself is not in the kingdom of Christ, Christ is not seated on His throne, Christ is not reigning, and the kingdom which was at hand two millennia ago has simply not come.

I wish to thank my opponent for an honorable discussion.

1 http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Awriternamedred

Con

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you,There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.Andafter six days, Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them." (Mark 9: 1-2)

I alleged that my opponent believes that Mark 9: 1 was fulfilled by Mark 9: 2. Hedoes! He objected to my statement, "My opponent must claim that three people "perceived it" five days later!"Make it six days, then. Scholars differ due to variations in Jewish reckoning of time.

He says,"I have not nor will I mention "five days later". The kingdom they saw was simply a vision nothing more."

Then you can mention six days, for it can"t be any longer than that. I maintain that Jesus"s statement in Mark 9: 1 implies that some in His audience would die before the kingdom came. If so, my opponent"s position demands that some in the audience died withina six-day period.

Peter, James, and John did not see the kingdom in a vision or elsewhere at the transfiguration scene.The Bible neither states nor implies such a thing. My opponent totally ignores the meaning ofeidowhich as a rule meansto perceive, to know. By his reasoning,a blind man could not perceive the coming of the kingdom.

Response: Your statement on transfiguration and the interpretation of the 5/6 days is complete speculation again I'm afraid. We can go back in forth all day long with what we believe it to be. The only problem here is you contradict yourself by stating the kingdom is also within the heart. It is too late to ask you whether or not you mean it as a devotion to God in which I could understand. Yet to say they came into an established Kingdom of God before he died would be silly. If he had to die for the sins, then how could he have established the kingdom before he died and rose claiming the greatest victory over satan and sin thus far. I'm sorry but it just wouldn't make any sense.

*****

Concerning Col 1: 13, my opponent says,"Your response here is meaningless as you do not infuse it with scriptures or evidence of what Paul truly meant."

Assume? The wordtranslatedanswers tomethistemi, a verb which meanstotranspose, transfer, remove from one place to anotherand speaksof a change of situation or place.1That is what Paul meant. The problem is this: Paul said that he and the Colossians had been transferredfromthe kingdom of Satanintothe kingdom of Jesus Christ, and your position is that the kingdom of Jesus Christ did not even exist at the time.

Response: My point is that the ministry(gospel of the kingdom) which you confuse as the kingdom(Christ's Reign) was established here.

You go run to others outside of the book to tell you what it means when in reality it is truly simple. They received the knowledge and understanding(keys) necessary to teach and guide those in the generation and thereafter to the kingdom.

I ask a simple question that has not been answered. If we were in Christ's Kingdom, why have we not been delivered from sin and it's temptation? If he ruled us in this kingdom which my opponent states is in our hearts wouldn't we be free from the tyranny of sin? I cite 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

If The kingdom resided in us, then we would have a piece of he who is perfect and cannot sin, making us perfect and free from sin.

*****

Awriternamedred:"Your ASV text is the problem it seems"

I have no problem in stating that the KJV translators mistranslated Rev 1: 6. The 1st-century Christian were not kings, but collectively they were a kingdom " and that is what John said. Christians are servants in the kingdom, not kings.

Response: So you rely heavily on what others outside of the book dictate what you believe another man stated? That's like me becoming a glorified theologist then stating that another apostle before my time actually meant this. It is pure SPECULATION! That cannot be proven to this day.

*****

"Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,and shall come forth, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Awriternamedred:"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."

Response: That sounds to me like a doctrine of second chances akin to purgatory. Where do you see such a doctrine in John 5?

1. All in the tombs hear His voice

2. All are resurrected

3. There are but two choices: life (Heaven) or damnation (Hell)

You cannot find your "those that do not make the cut will be left" in there at all " or anywhere else until you run across it in the types, figures, and symbols of the Apocalypse.

Response: Nothing at all like purgatory. You too easily shy away from the good book of revelations. This is the reason why your theories are so limited in defense. The second death is far worse than any catholic doctrine of purgatory.

*****

Regarding "the kingdom is at hand" and "shortly come to pass", my opponent says,"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. Could "at hand" mean anything of course it could yet if you cannot pinpoint an exact time you fail miserably with this attempt."

Let"s start at the end. Actually, he believes that "at hand" and "shortly come to pass"are totally meaningless. When Paul said, "The time of my departure is at hand", he meant nothing " as per my opponent. "At hand" and "shortly come to pass" refer to imminency and have never once referred to a period of more than a hundred years in the entire Bible. I stated that "at hand" might mean a day, a week, a month, a year, or a decade. It could mean several decades. It is an indefinite but brief period of time. My opponent wants me to take an indefinite descriptor, try to ascribe an exact time to it " and if I can"t, then he says I have failed! Pfffffffffft. Let him find a single instance of the phrase meaning two thousand years. A thousand? Five hundred? Any takers?

Response: Seems your guess is still as impotent as it has been since we began. I believe "at hand" to hold meaning but I also believe a sense of urgency causes the masses to flock towards redemption. As you said it could be any variable of time and we truly don't know therefore your guesses of when it was established or arrived are simply that, guesses. Or better yet is it 6 days later, or 600? Your guess must be as good as any right?

"because for the work of Christ hecame nigh untodeath, hazarding his life to supply that which was lacking in your service toward me." (Philippians 2: 30)

"Came nigh unto" iseggisen, the same word as in, for instance, Matt 4: 17. Does my opponent mean to tell us that it "could mean anything"? Land"s sakes, it means the man was close to death, that death was imminent.

The fact that "at hand" means an indefinite brief period of time does not give my opponent license to claim that it is meaningless.

Response: I never stated the words were meaningless, I only stated you cannot line up the times to fit your theory. Matt 4:17 and Phil 2:30 are two distant occurrences as well as the tone they speak.

*****

Awriternamedred:"Secondly you have Noah's Ark. Have you forgotten God's power here when he turned the most vicious of beasts into herbivores?"

My opponent apparently does not credit Noah with having enoughgumptionof separate tigers from wildebeests. Almost as powerful as God"s power is the power of my opponent"s imagination. Does my opponent speculate that piranhas attacked and ate other fish prior to the flood, then magically stopped, then cranked their naughty behavior up again at some point post-flood?

You forget Eden dear friend. If we were speaking of magic we wouldn't need the bible now would we? If God chose to keep the beasts tame and docile they will be tame and docile not agitated and restless for forty days and nights. Only the power of the one true God could have brought the lions, tigers, and bears onto the ark so peacefully without Noah and his family losing fingers and limbs. It isn't speculation dear opponent but mere understanding.

*****

Awriternamedred:"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"

Anna: "Tis not I who is turning the figurative into literal, but you. He thinks that if the lions aren"t out grazing in the pasture with the cows, then the kingdom of Christ isn"t here! As proof of the concept:

Awriternamedred:"This is a sign that the lord has returned as well as the passage in Joel 2:28-32"

Anna: See? The apostle Peter proclaimed on Pentecost that what the people were seeing then and there was a fulfillment of Joel 2: 28-32. He even quoted it to them and said, "This is that." Ordinarily, if an inspired apostle said, "This fulfills that", nobody would question it. My opponent says it didn"t! He reads Joel 2: 28-32 and thinks it is yet future. Why? Well, he reasons, the sun has not turned into darkness yet. The moon hasn"t been turned into blood. Yet, Peter says, "This is that!" The truth is in Joel 2, the sun and moon are representative of the Jewish authorities and dignitaries, including the high priest and Sanhedrin, who would be judged along with their entire system " and rejected " during the next several decades, beginning at Pentecost.

Response: You do give me a thorough good time doing this with you. You seemingly missed key scriptures in Peter's sermon. Let's take a look at some of my favorites shall we.

V.17 and it shall come to pass in the last days,(Peter cites Joel)

V.29 "let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both deadand buried(not resurrected), and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

This was a lesson you my opponent have switched to figurative claims and unsupported biblical translations of what he meant when in fact this was peter teaching, then baptizing not saying anything had actually come to pass as of yet but it will. Stop reading into words that aren't there!

*****

Awriternamedred:"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 ""

I would beg, even plead, with my opponent, after this debate is over, toplease read some other post-exilic Jewish apocalyptic literature. I fail to see how someone could expect to make sense out of the Apocalypse of John if he has never studied apocalyptic literature in general. The thousand years in Revelation 20 is not literal " in fact, apocalypses are not literal. By definition, (1) they employ grotesque figures, high typology, and extreme symbolism and (2) the prologue of an Apocalypse will always be literal. It has to be, or else the reader would become a victim of his own imagination. Anyway, my response to these calculations is:the thousand years of Revelation 20 is merely symbolic of a long, complete period of time.It is not literal.

Response: Once again you let other literature cloud your judgement without questioning the literature and it's credibility itself. I will examine the literature if you actually study the great tribulation literature.

"For every beast of the forest is mine, And the cattle upon a thousand hills." (Ps 50: 10)

There are, literally, tens of thousands of hills. We know that God owns the cattle upon a thousand of those hills. Who owns the rest?

"Remember his covenant forever, The word which he commanded to a thousand generations" (I Chron 16: 15)

What happens at the 1,001stgeneration?

Response: Read the following verse. It is an everlasting covenant. Yet why in revelations would it say thousand years expired. It would have to be time ticking away year by year for 1,000 to expire. You have two separate meanings, for two separate concepts. Simple.

*****

I shall close exactly where I began, since the premise has yet to be disproven " despite our anticipated excursions into the figurative language of Revelation.

1. To come in the days of the Roman Emperors

Response: You have still failed to prove how that timing works even though I asked you.

2. The time was fulfilled - it was near

Response: John fulfilled the prophecy of the messenger. Mal 3:1-2

3. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by John

Response: Once again too vague and unable to disclose an accurate date and time ultimately discrediting your proposition.

4. Heralded as "near" and "at hand" by Jesus

Response: same as statement above. To vague to pinpoint a time discrediting your position.

5. Preached as "at hand" by the twelve disciples (Matt 10: 7, Luke 9: 2)

Response: He gave them the mission to spread the gospel of the word of the kingdom that is continuously spread today. The Gospel of the kingdom is simply that, Gospel(good news) Using at hand repeatedly still doesn't give you anything.

6. Preached as "nigh unto you" by the seventy (Luke 10: 9)

Response: Same principle applies here.

7. Awaited by Joseph of Arimethea (Mark 15: 43)

Response: He waited for the kingdom. Never said he received or entered the kingdom. We all are waiting for the kingdom.

8. Disciples were to pray for it (Matt 6: 10)

Response: We STILL pray for it.

9. Would appear before some standing with the Lord would die (Mark 9: 1)

Response: This was a vision that enabled few to see it. Yet how do they see it if it is only within the heart and not a manifestation.

10. Would come with power, power would come with the Spirit (Mark 9: 1)

Response: Vision, Vision, Vision!

11. Would all occur in Jerusalem

Response: You then contradict yourself again. For if that was the case why would we continue the kingdom(ministry) here in the states? All the signs have not come to pass.

12. Peter was granted the keys to it

Response: Peter was given the knowledge to pass on to the others.

PENTECOST

13. After, Pentecost, Paul said he was in the kingdom (Col 1: 13)

False. I ask you stop using too many translated texts of the scriptures to back your stances.

14. After Pentecost, Paul said the Colossians were in the kingdom (Col 1: 13)

False again.

15. After Pentecost, John said he was in the kingdom (Rev 1: 6, 9)

False again. You state the original scriptures were wrong to substantiate. That's too easy of an excuse I'm afraid and not significant enough to displace the original text because they weren't "christian enough"

16. After Pentecost, John said his first readers of Revelation were in the kingdom (Rev 1: 6, 9)

False again same goes as the above statement.

17. After Pentecost, Peter said we are a royal or kingly priesthood (I Pet 2: 9)

Kingly isn't mentioned. Yet a chosen Generation is, a royal priesthood is, a holy nation is. These are mentioned yet who was chosen?

18. After Pentecost, John said that Jesus is the ruler of the earth (Rev 1: 5-6)

I already stated that beginning from creation he made everything into existence so of course he rules it. Yet the kingdom you mention does not exist here.

I end with this:

My opponent has given her best in five rounds to attempt to prove the kingdom was established. Yet she refuses to credit Revelations as a reasonable source due to a book outside the bible she read. She is formidable as a source of knowledge yet a good deal of her knowledge based isn't of her own understanding but merely a combination of theories, strong assumptions and translated texts of the original scriptures.

The kingdom cannot be established yet due to these key factors:

The reign of Christ has not yet expired nor began if it was so then the father would've descended once Christ gives up his kingdom. There must be a time frame when Christ reigns and delivers the kingdom or there would be no need of prophecy.
The great tribulation unknown to my opponent has not come to pass. It is a 3.5 year period in which the abomination of desolation(anti-christ) must run the world and lay waste to all who do not accept his mark.
Christ must return to end the anti-christ
There must be peace in the holy land not the wars that rage on now.
Israel has not been gathered from the four winds of the earth
My opponent could not satisfy an accurate time of when the kingdom was establish
My opponent seemingly forgot and chose to ignore the docile animals in eden and noah's ark that supports isaiah's prophecy.
Too many signs have yet to happen
There needs to be a new temple built in Jerusalem
This was a very interesting debate and I truly thank my opponent Anna for her spirit and strong faith and knowledge that gave me a chance to express my knowledge and to come to understand hers as well. I applaud and respect her for her competition as I did enjoy it thoroughly. Thank you
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA
Awriternamedred, let me know when you are ready for the debate.

Peter
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA
"Dude seriously I can just debate you on a topic of your choice although using the NASB will not help you at all. I just really don't feel like doing this right now. Pick a topic, gather your resources, check your facts twice and I'll gladly debate you one week from today on AD 70, the tribulation, Kingdom, The bible, the crucifixion and it's significance. Doesn't matter just pick a topic and settle your confusions." - Red

Sure, I'll let you know when I'm ready. I'm in a debate right now.

Peter
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA
"Also to your covenant question of course there is a new covenant but it only ended the levitical priesthood as well as the sacrificial law that's all that ended when he died." -Red

You miss the point. Jesus said not the smallest letter of the Law would disappear until all is accomplished. Where is the temple? Where are the priests? Where are the animal sacrifices? They disappeared. What does that tell you? What it tells me is that you are looking at Scripture with the wrong lens. Your worldview confuses what Jesus actually said and then you try to justify it.

Matthew 5:17-18
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [a]the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets - the Old Covenant, so that the new could be put in effect.

Hebrews 8:13

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 [a]When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is [b]ready to disappear.

the old disappeared in A.D. 70. It was ready to disappear when the author of Hebrews wrote to the Hebrew Christians shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Posted by Awriternamedred 3 years ago
Awriternamedred
Dude seriously I can just debate you on a topic of your choice although using the NASB will not help you at all. I just really don't feel like doing this right now. Pick a topic, gather your resources, check your facts twice and I'll gladly debate you one week from today on AD 70, the tribulation, Kingdom, The bible, the crucifixion and it's significance. Doesn't matter just pick a topic and settle your confusions.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA
"Geez your annoying stick to one topic at a time. The overall gist of the answer your looking for: Yes his death is extremely significant, yet no it didn't give guaranteed access to the kingdom/Heaven. We can't be perfect but we can try to walk and live a perfect life. If we stray from perfection it's ok as long as we try our best to please God. Look if your really interested I'll debate when I feel like it but you gotta pick 1 topic to start with." -Red

Sorry to bring up these un-pleasantries. I just wanted to rattle your theology since I think it is compounded by errors.

So you are relying on your own merit before God. Jesus' perfect sacrifice for salvation did not accomplish the saving of anyone. It just made salvation possible. The kingdom that He and others said was near, even at the door, was not really near. It was thousands of years down the corridor of time. When Jesus spoke to people in the 1st century, He wasn't speaking to them, but to us. His words did not mean what they appear to mean. Anyone can come along and put their own meaning to His words and that is perfectly alright in your books.
Posted by Awriternamedred 3 years ago
Awriternamedred
Also to your covenant question of course there is a new covenant but it only ended the levitical priesthood as well as the sacrificial law that's all that ended when he died.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA
Was does Hebrews 9:26 mean, NOW, once at the consummation of the ages?

26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin [a]by the sacrifice of Himself.

Daniel 2:44-45
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Divine Kingdom

44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be [a]left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place [b]in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy."

In the days of the kings (Caesars) of the fourth beast - the Roman Empire - God would set up a kingdom that would never be destroyed. That kingdom was set up in A.D. 70. The Old Covenant had to first disappear.

Matthew 5:17-18
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [a]the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Notice Jesus said not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away until ALL the Law is accomplished. Where is the temple? Where are the Priests? Where are the animal sacrifices? Did Jesus make a mistake (heaven forbid!)? The OT system could not be accomplished after A.D. 70. The old heaven and earth that OT Israel revolved around - the temple and City of God were destroyed. Paul could say we are new creatures in Christ Jesus, the old has gone the new has come. Was he lying?
Posted by Awriternamedred 3 years ago
Awriternamedred
Geez your annoying stick to one topic at a time. The overall gist of the answer your looking for: Yes his death is extremely significant, yet no it didn't give guaranteed access to the kingdom/Heaven. We can't be perfect but we can try to walk and live a perfect life. If we stray from perfection it's ok as long as we try our best to please God. Look if your really interested I'll debate when I feel like it but you gotta pick 1 topic to start with.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA
What significance was the sacrifice of Jesus?

Did it atone for anyone's sins or do we still have to atone for our own sins? If we still have to merit God's righteous requirements on our own merit then what was the purpose of Jesus living a perfect life on account of those who will put their trust in Him? Was the Scapegoat God provided not sufficient? Which sins did Jesus actual die for on the cross?

Hebrews 9:15-17
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a [a]covenant is, there must of necessity [b]be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a [c]covenant is valid only when [d]men are dead, [e]for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

Since Jesus died, is the New Covenant in effect?

Hebrews 9:24-26

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin [a]by the sacrifice of Himself.

Is Jesus, as Mediator and High Priest, interceding for His people? If so, then the one time sacrifice was sufficient for sin. If not then you must work for your salvation. Do you believe in salvation by works, by your own merit? If so, then what did Jesus accomplish on the cross?

Did He save His people from their sins?
Posted by Awriternamedred 3 years ago
Awriternamedred
You are mistaken I'm afraid, New American Standard Bible" says hour it is an American book coinciding with American doctrine. The translation isn't original text, so I cannot agree with your stance. KJV states: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.R06;

As you see here no hour. Not only that the "last time" is still too vague.

AD 70 wasn't an establishment of the kingdom. That was the desolation of Israel. The great tribulation is a time that never came to pass and will only happen once in our lifetimes. You seem to be mixed up on some dates and the lot of the gentile history.

70 weeks is a massive topic to cover and with the NASB it won't work. Like I said I'd gladly send you some key differences you are overlooking as far as debating I'm not sure I'd like to do that for the time being the 5 rounds with Anna was a lot longer than I anticipated. Yet if you'd prefer a discussion none the less I will do so in a forum this weekend.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
annanicoleAwriternamedredTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Annanicole successfully met the burden of proof, and con did little to attack the initial words of Jesus, thus proving the literal Kingdom.