"It is the BLACKS who are ALWAYS ANGRY, who are ANGRY RACISTS, who always play the victim, in an attempt to shake down "white guilt" and useful white idiots fall for their  shtick."

There is some truth in here, but they definitely don't always act like that.  The love of Jesus is the answer, man.  Just cast out all the anger and replace it with peaceful, loving energy.

"No, Yeshua didn't. Go read it in context and see that He was talking to the Christ-hating Pharisees who had the spirit of murder in them, not the Kingdom of God! Look in your margin and see that the proper translation is that "the Kingdom of God is among you" - He was its Representative."

Why would I find the proper translation in the margin?  Your inference that he was its representative is an escape attempt from the plain reading of the passage.  This isn't a passage that I've studied at the level of the original languages but if you want to make a case from the Greek feel free.

You raise the context of the Pharisees and I'm glad you did because it actually proves the exact opposite point.  The Pharisees expected the Messiah to come and restore Israel to its former glory.  This is what they thought the 'kingdom of God' was.  So, when Jesus says that the kingdom is 'among you' or 'within you' this is a correction of their view.

The plain reading of the passage doesn't allow your interpretation, I'm afraid.  Jesus is not the kingdom of God.  That's what he would have had to mean either by 'among' or by 'within.'   This is obviously absurd so you import something that is not there, that by 'the kingdom' you want it to read 'the representative of the kingdom' and these are two very different things.

It will be a literal Kingdom just as Daniel foresaw and Yeshua preached, with literal Priest-Kings ruling from Jerusalem.

Yes, there will be a literal kingdom at the end of all things.  It will not be a temporal kingdom.  We might call it 'Jerusalem' for metaphoric reasons but after everything is consumed with fire I doubt the current geographic layout will be preserved.

"Because that's where the proper explanation of the Greek is found."

Wouldn't the proper explanation of the Greek be found in the translation, if anywhere?  The margins and footnotes will contain additional information, perhaps alternate translations if the primary one wasn't conclusive.   Unless we're talking about completely different things, the margins are the last place you'd find the 'proper explanation.' 

"Yeshua is representative of the Kingdom of God as the rulers of nations, heads of state, are representative of their respective kingdoms/countries. The Bible uses the terms "king" and "kingdom" interchangeably (see Daniel 7:17-18, 23)."

The text does not support your contention that Jesus is referring to himself.  There is no disputing this.  As for your 'king' and 'kingdom' point I'm pretty sure that's bunk.  Daniel is in Hebrew.  We are working with the Greek, here. 

"To even remotely imagine those murderous Pharisees who hated Christ had even a spark of the Kingdom of God within them is ludicrous and is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture."

Don't be ridiculous.  First of all, I clearly stated exactly what sense the context- who Jesus was talking to- was relevant.  We're talking about people who had certain notions about the Kingdom of God, people who were expecting a Messiah of a certain type- the conquering hero.  No one is supposing that he is saying that the Pharisees here are in the kingdom of God.  Go back and look at what I said.

The interesting thing is that you are actually making the exact same error as the Pharisees.  That's gotta be pretty uncomfortable.  You too are expecting a Messiah of a certain type rather than letting the Scriptures drive your expectations.

"Luke wrote these words, originally, in the Greek language. The Greek words he wrote were translated into the English words "within you." But, if you have a Bible with the marginal references, you will notice that this is alternately rendered "in the midst of you," or "among you."

I don't need marginal references.  I can read the Greek myself.  I have a minor in Biblical Languages and taught Biblical Greek for two years at the college level.  So, like I said, if you want to take this to the level of the actual Greek, I say go for it.  Bring it on.  Citing marginal notes isn't going to cut it here. 

As I said, the way that marginal notes work is not that they are more definitive or authoritative than what is in the translation, but rather to point out that there is ambiguity in the translation, or even perhaps in the textual tradition itself.  The translators put the version that they think is best into the text, not the margins.  So, the prima facie argument is that 'within you' is the favored translation, ambiguities aside.   

That said, your problem escalates because the alternatives do not support you, because there is no ambiguity on the word 'kingdom.'  If the text was 'The King' and not 'the Kingdom' then of course something like 'among you' begins to make sense.  Unfortunately, in the Greek, there is a distinct word for 'king' and a distinct word for 'kingdom.'  Compare and contrast this Luke passage with Matthew 1:6.  The words for 'king' and 'kingdom' are different.

However, it isn't just the fact that Jesus is talking to the Pharisees that we need to take into account.  I've already done that.  But look at the rest of the passage, my friend.

"The Kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say 'Here it is' or 'There it is' because the Kingdom of God is [disputed]."

By your argument 'king' and 'kingdom' are equivalent, and so Jesus is saying "I, the King, am among you."  But this is nonsense in light of the fact that Jesus just said that the 'king/kingdom' doesn't come with careful observation.  If Jesus meant that the King was present, then the whole point that careful observation won't be helpful is, frankly, stupid.  Stupid for the obvious reason that if Jesus is referring to himself then in fact the King did come with careful observation. 

But he goes on to attack a local concept of Kingdom.  It is not the kind of thing, apparently, that one can point to.  But you insist that they could point to it:  he was standing right there.

But this is all really just wasted breath on my part.  The real point is that it is nonsense to think that by 'kingdom' Jesus meant 'I, the King.'  in the Greek, the word for 'kingdom' is different than the word for 'king.'  This passage says 'kingdom,' with no ambiguity.  So, as far as I'm concerned, "The Kingdom is within you" or "The Kingdom is among you" means basically the same thing, and pointing out that there is ambiguity on entos umon estin accomplishes nothing.

Yes, I have my NT Greek open.  Why?  Because I wanted to make sure that there was no ambiguity on the word 'Kingdom.'  Alas, there isn't.  It would appear that all of the manuscripts agree on 'kingdom' and none of them say 'king.'