It's very difficult to imagine what type of 'Bible' you have been reading.
There's absolutely NOTHING from Christ's comments about HIS KINGDOM to preclude HIS KINGDOM BEING BOTH spiritual and tangible--given HIS priorities and HIS TIMING and HIS WAYS OF DOING IT TO SUIT HIS GOALS.
Similarly, there's absolutely NOTHING in Scripture or logic which prevents GOD from writing a text of mixed literal and symbolic portions--even in the same sentence--as a puzzle He desires Believers to sort out and nonbelievers to be mystified by.
Sorry it's so seemingly mystifying to you. We may not know precisely what a given portion means ahead of time or perhaps until just prior to the time. Nevertheless, I am quite happy to trust God that He meant what He said and said what He meant and that it will become clearer either before, during or after the moment of fulfillment.
I find this a mind bogglingly off the wall assertion totally devoid of any logical or solid relationship to the Scriptures in The Bible that I have repeatedly been blessed to read.
You said that Christ's thousand year reign began immediately after His ascension.
You appear to be too bright to have said such a thing. Amazing. For THAT to have been as you assert--Plenty of other Scriptures regarding that reign would have ALSO HAD TO HAVE BEGUN THEIR FULFILLMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER CHRIST'S ASCENSION. There's not a shred of evidence that a single example has transpired.
The New Jerusalem has not arrived.
The New Temple has not been built.
Evil has not been removed from the earth and locked up for any of the 2000 years since.
Satan is still running around loose contrary to his state in the 1,000 year reign.
etc. etc. and etc.
Perhaps you'd do well to read the Scriptures again. And perhaps several more times after that, too.
There's plenty of evidence. You've simply either chosen to not study it, ignore it, or listen to others with alternative positions.
I won't belabor this debate b/c this is not the forum for it. It's highly inefficient. But consider several things.
First, consider that the what's in the Bible is meant for God's people, whomever they happen to be. God never, ever, put an emphasis on this earth other than saving lives in terms of eternal redemption generally speaking. I.e., Matt. 18:9 "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the (I)fiery hell."
It is man that makes God's kingdom of this world, not God. Jesus said plainly, that his kingdom was not of this world. That means then, now, or at anytime.
New Jerusalem is purely figurative.
The temple is his people. It's been rebuilt.
Satan's only weapon, death, has been neutralized. Earthly logic will counter that, but that's only when viewed thru a perspective which lacks an eternal basis. Life on earth is nothing compared to eternal life which is why Paul said 'to live is Christ, to die is gain.' The last enemy was death, and that has been defeated as the scripture states. It was defeated with Christ's sacrifice for us. Death could no longer be used as a tool by Satan.
God doesn't have anything to prove to anyone. Consider in the parable of Lazarus and the poor man. Lazarus pleads with Abraham to allow him to go back to his brothers to warn them under the notion that if a 'someone rises from the dead', then they will listen. Abraham tells him no, even if someone rises from the dead, they will not listen.
Jesus is only coming back to claim his own. The new Jerusalem will be elsewhere. 2 Peter 3 cannot make it any clearer that upon the return of Jesus, this earth is destroyed by fire permanently. You can argue that until you're blue in the face, but your argument is not with me. ;)
There's so much more, but I can tell you already believe what you've read in books other than the Bible. Conduct your own study. If you do, it'll take years. You'll see it all. Throw out what you know, start from scratch, and ask yourself the tough questions that make no sense otherwise.