Reason #6: Failure to Return
Biblical historians are quite clear on this matter -- Early Christians, notably Jesus, Paul, the disciples, and other followers were all convinced that the end of times was near and that an earthly kingdom presided over by Jesus would be established within the lifetime of some people who were then currently alive. The Bible claims that Jesus made the following comment:
Matthew 16:28
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
There's good reason to believe Jesus never made this statement.
It's doubtful that he ever spoke of the "Son of Man" or of the end of the world, but maybe he did. All these quotes could be words that were placed into his mouth. The themes were obviously a part of the already-existing culture and not something he invented. But if he did speak of this it's probably true that he spoke of it happening "soon" or as something "imminent."
However, the "some who are standing here will not taste death before" phrase does not fit well with the Jesus of about 29-30 AD. This pronouncement clearly implies that some WILL die before the "Son of Man" comes, and probably more than only 2 or 3, because it implies that the ones who will not die before then are a somewhat limited number. I.e., only a few will survive to that day, probably not many.
So, how long would that period be? It surely suggests many years, probably more than 10 or even more than 20. Long enough for a good number of them to die. It allows the time lapse to be longer than was the popular perception. The perception was that the end was coming very soon, probably only a few days or weeks or maybe months, but not several years.
Therefore, this statement probably dates from many years later, like 20 or 30. But there also has to be a limit on how much later, because if it's too much later, none of those original disciples are still living.
So this statement fits well at around 60-70 AD when some of them have died but others are still living. Maybe even 80 AD, but no later than this. The "end of the world" sayings fit better in the period from the destruction of the Temple and after the increased persecution, like that under Nero. When conditions got worse, it was taken as a sign that the end was drawing near, plus also there was increased need for reassurance in the face of these disastrous setbacks.
So it's best to understand this statement about "some standing here" as an admonition from a later Christian writer around 70 AD giving reassurance to those persecuted Christians. This writer, perhaps Mark, or his source, no doubt believed Jesus said warnings like this about the end, but exaggerated it by specifically connecting it to the lives of a few who would still be surviving into the 80s or 90s.
Maybe Jesus did speak of the "end of the world" as something happening soon, or maybe not. We don't know. But what's almost certain is that he would not promote the idea that the end is far enough in the future so that many of those standing there would die first. This would be out of character. There was never any thinking that "the end" would be coming in 40 or 50 years down the line. Much more likely than this would be that he said nothing about the "end of the world" at all. This could be just one further example of words put into his mouth by the writers who got these ideas from the popular apocalyptic writings.
So this is not an error that Jesus committed, i.e., not a prediction of his that failed to happen.
Jesus also advised against going to court against someone who steals from you and also told people not to store up stocks or reserves for the future. Clearly, he thought the end was very near.
All that's clear is that there was a motley array of sundry characters who wanted to make Jesus their mouthpiece for their ideas. We know what they thought, but not what Jesus thought or advised. We only know that they chose Jesus as their mouthpiece. And the question to ask is why they chose him and not someone else for this role, in 30 AD when he was no one of any importance or noteworthiness (unless he had a reputation as a miracle-worker).
Likewise, Paul advised followers not to marry and that the end time was near. In this scripture he obviously believes that some of the people he is talking to will still be alive at the second coming.
I Thessalonians 4: 16-18
“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.”
The obvious fact is that the second coming was not forthcoming at that time, or even close to being near. The 2000-year delay is a strong piece of evidence that Christianity is a failed religion.
No, this only shows that a major expectation of 1st-century Christians was mistaken. But this expectation is itself evidence of something. What caused them to have such an expectation in the first place? What happened initially that led them to make a god out of him?
In your theory of how the early Jesus cult got started, if he did not do any miracle acts, you need to explain what caused them to make this person, real or fictional, into a god. No one has given this explanation yet. The Second Coming is one of many symbols that they attached to him, and no one yet has given an explanation why they chose this person to attach these symbols to, and not to any other particular persons in history.
How did all the mythologizers agree to choose this one figure as their deity for their second-coming symbol and virgin birth and other symbols? Why don't we have several of these Christ-like hero figures who emerge suddenly in history, out of nowhere, and become made into a god within a few decades?
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. Remember that Jesus was a Jew who had no intention to deviate from the Hebrew scriptures:
Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6–7; 11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)
This might be an argument against a Christianity that defines Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who fulfills these prophecies in accordance with the expectations of a particular group of Jews (and not all Jews had the same messianic expectations). However, Jesus does not have to be defined this way.
Rather, he was a person in Galilee who performed miracle acts, attracted a following, went to Jerusalem, and was executed there. Then the mythologizing turned him into many things, depending upon which faction used him for its purpose. Only one faction tried to make him fit all the Jewish messiah prophecies. And maybe he didn't fit very well, and yet they tried so hard, as did many other factions try to make him fit into their religious or political scheme.
And so the question should be: Why did all these different factions, mostly hostile to each other, try to adopt Jesus and make him fit into their definition or their formula for a divine hero or cosmic entity or revolutionary symbol? Why did they all converge on this one figure, this Galilean who had no special qualities (if he didn't do any miracle acts) and had no reputation when he died?
Why did they formalize his trial, make him into the big news of the day in Jerusalem, when in reality he was arbitrarily condemned to death in an informal proceeding which hardly anyone noticed, and quickly eliminated like John the Baptist or the church leader James was eliminated. If anyone should have been deified or mythologized with a resurrection story and a 2nd Coming symbol, it should have been either of these two rather than Jesus.
So, why was Jesus, and he alone, chosen to receive all these mythologizing symbols and not James or John the Baptist or someone else?
No one has answered this question. The answers supposedly given to this all ignore this Jesus figure in particular and only claim that myths or cults can get started. But in all cases the mythic hero had some quality that drew the attention to him, or had a public image or reputation going back over many generations or centuries.
To answer the question, you must tell us what it was about this Jesus figure, a real or fictional character of no standing in 30-40 AD, that drew the attention and caused so many people to choose him in particular as their messiah-savior figure instead of someone else. Not only why this one, but this one ONLY instead of several who were more noteworthy than he was and could serve as hero figures for different factions.
I.e., there should be a political revolutionary Jesus-like figure, a rabbinic-pharisee Jesus-like figure, an Essene Jesus-like figure, a gnostic Jesus-like figure, an apocalyptic Son of Man Jesus-like figure, and so on. We should have many, not only this one, because it is not reasonable for all these different factions, who mostly hated each other, to all converge on this one Galilean figure to make him their common mythic hero.
Until a good explanation is given for this, you cannot dismiss out-of-hand the simple explanation that he must have actually performed those miracle acts, on a grand scale that would attract wide interest, from so many different conflicting camps.
