Not really looking to get involved in the thread as I don't have much time to be here. However with your last post OldR.. I find this an interesting point.. "
No important element of instruction was omitted as Christ prepared his own for what was ahead. He made it clear that there would be delay. in establishing the kingdom. Even though he knew what would happen he made a bona fide offer of the kingdom according to prophecy"
Interestingly enough in Acts 1:3 we see this:
Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Here we see that after the resurrection, for 40 days, he was speaking to his chosen disciples of the "things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".
Then we see Jesus tell them to go to Jerusalem and wait for the the Holy Spirit and the baptism thereof.
Watch what happens Next:
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
So, after Jesus spent the last 40 days teaching these disciples about the Kingdom of God (what it was, is, and will come to pass)... we see the disciples come to him and ask - when he will RESTORE -again- the Kingdom to Israel.
Now just for clarification sake, I'm using the KJV here (just easier) and the word 'again' is used though technically not in the original manuscripts. However the term 'restore' establishes that the word 'again' not can but used but in fact should be used giving greater and a more full clarification of what 'restore' is implying. Therefore no matter whether it is 'restore' or 'restore again' it is the same in meaning.
It is of importance here to note what they were asking, in light of the fact that the last 40 days, they were under Jesus specific teachings which specifically was pertaining to the Kingdom of God. And then we see the disciples ask - when he would -restore again- the Kingdom TO Israel.
To 'restore again', is hugely significant and means that at one time it existed but either has been take away or become so weak and without power it is no longer has authority and has another ruler over it. Now the question is, what is it that will be 'again' that no longer was or has become weak and powerless and lame.. the Kingdom of Israel. And the fact they asked when 'HE" was going to restore it, coincided with the OT prophesies regarding the Messiah.
On this a unique question must be asked.. Who is Israel?
Well, if it is the Church.. then you have a very large biblical problem because according to this passage the Kingdom was either taken away from the Church or that the Kingdom had become weak and retched and another OTHER than God had taken control, therefore needed Jesus to restore it AGAIN - or bring it back into being because in either case - it no longer truly existed.
If it is literal national Israel.. well we find biblical continuity and don't have the Kingdom being taken away from the Church and asking when He will restore it again to us.
Anyway.. since we 'know' the Kingdom of God has never been removed and that it was NOTat any time no longer in existence (whether literally or in a weakened state and the rule was usurped) , we know that this was speaking NOT of spiritual Israel often called the church but of literal physical Israel.
Now in relation to this question some try to state that Jesus did not answer them because their question was not correct - but we find in fact not only did He answer them, but He answered them specifically regarding the question they posed in the affirmative. In other words, their question was a correct one but their focus or better what they should be focused upon was not.
See:
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Act 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.
Note He DOES address their question.. it is not for you to
know when the Father will do so. Again, note this.. He did not deny their question, nor did He tell them they misunderstood, or that they are asking the wrong question, No, His answer was in agreement with the question posed but was refocusing them on what they should be more concerned with. Why? Because that (restoring the Kingdom to Israel) is the Father's business. In other words - Don't get caught up on when the Father will accomplish what He promised..
In vss 8 He then goes on to tell them what they ARE to be concerned about.. to be His witnesses everywhere. Basically telling them - The Father will bring to pass what is His to worry about. You however need to worry about the tasks that you have been placed in charge of.
Just on Acts 1 alone, there is no dispute that Jesus taught of a literal physical Kingdom of Israel HE will re-establish. We know this because the disciples wanted to know when He was planning on 'restoring again' the Kingdom to Israel.
We also know this not only because of scripture (and in more than just that one place) but also because of the early church fathers, and we know that one of these was most likely if not actually one of Johns (the writer of Revelation) disciples. And he is noted for teaching this very same view. Justin Martyr (one of the early church fathers) is noted as stating this is/was the orthodox teaching of the church during his time (a literal Kingdom to Isreal from which Christ Jesus would reign). Thus the earliest works we have of disciples of Christ (scripture) as well as those who were taught by His disciple's disciples (giving further proof of what they wrote meant) state this was the common consistent and upheld teachings of the church for the first 450'ish years.
What needs to be recongnized is they asked if Jesus was going to RESTORE AGAIN the Kingdom TO Israel, meaning to bring back permanently what no longer existed.
care to deal with passage I gave and address it? 
