>>18125029
>Wouldn't the fact that Christ still hadn't returned despite saying he would by the end of their lives be sufficient to just give up on it?
Well, no, because, one, they saw Jesus come back to life after having been murdered, a sure seal of divine approval, and, two, because Jesus never actually said his return would lead to the end of the world, only to the destruction of the temple, since the verses these false claims are based on are from the Olivet Discourse, which literally begins with just that same claim about the temple:
>Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
The confusion arises because Jesus is then asked three distinct questions:
>Tell us (1) when will this happen, and (2) what will be the sign of your coming and (3) of the end of the age?
And the Discourse seemingly answers all three at once with no clear demarcation, but since the temple was indeed destroyed within that generation, the imagery of worldwide catastrophe it uses can't possibly be literal, especially since the imagery is borrowed from other parts of the OT where there such imagery had a metaphorical import, see, for example, Isaiah 19:1-2 or Jeremiah 4:13-14.

The three parables that immediately follow this section also strongly suggest that Jesus wasn't talking about the literal end of the world. All three are about being prepared and include such verses as "my master is staying away a long time...", "the bridegroom was a long time in coming", and "after a long time the master of those servants returned...".

Don't mistake the easy arrogance of skeptics for confidence. Don't place the potential loss of the greatest thing possible, being a child in the Kingdom of God, on such people. Read both sides and decide for yourself, dear Anon.