Actually, Andrew, the new kid on the block, in this case your method of interpreting Scripture has the burden of proof. You are the one seeking to convince others that the Church was wrong from almost its inception about everything from the divinity of Christ and even the resurrection. Jesus was Jew begs the question. That He knew the Scripture begs the question. That He thought like a prophet in a certain sense begs the question. That He expected the kingdom to come is a matter of dispute. If you mean the actual, physical kingdom, you would be certainly incorrect.
Kingdom language cannot be restricted to one perspective or dimension. The term is used in more than one sense in the NT. Jesus said the kingdom of God is within. When he announced liberty to the captives, He did not have the literal liberation of Israel in mind as the other prophets would have. It is not a safe assumption to claim that Jesus possessed the same level of knowledge about His program that fallen, inperfect prophets had. This moves in the direction of Preterism, which, as you know, has also been deemed heresy by the Church.
I am not demanding that you dance to the Historical-Grammatico approach. I am demanding that your method be articulated clearly and defended. John tells us to test the spirits, does he not? Paul says that he that is spiritual judges everything. I am saying we place the “johnny-come-lately” method under scrutiny to see if it is a legitimate practice to use it as the predminate method for understanding the teachings of the NT documents, and hence, the OT documents as understood by the NT writers.