Have you ever done an intensive study of the Messianic prophecies? They are such that many Jews (historically speaking), including the Essenes, have been forced to speculate that there would be not one, but two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph, who would be the suffering servant, and Messiah ben David, who would be the triumphant king.
Well, that's one possible reconcilliation. However, the view that we hold is that the prophecies point to the Messiah coming twice. In the first coming, He came as the suffering servant, whose death consumated all of the bloody sin-sacrifices of the Torah, but who rose again from the dead as said in Isa. 53:10-12--though God made Him a sin offering, He was raised so that He could also "see His seed" and "prolong His days."
So why didn't Yeshua go on to immediately fulfill the prophecies of Israel's restoration after He rose from the dead? Simply put, because already having come to His own, His own did not receive Him (see John 1:11). The fact that the Jews would transgress against God in some way to fall from His favor after the Messiah came and was "cut off" is spoken of in the Tanakh, where Jerusalem is prophesyed to be destroyed again after the Messiah came in Dan. 9:26 (and when has Jerusalem ever been destroyed save for the sins of its people?).
In Hosea 5:15, God says, "I will return again to My place till they acknowledge their offense." Hmm, so when did God leave His place (i.e. heaven)? In the Christian concept of the Godhead, where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same God at the same time, God did indeed leave His place when He came in the person of Jesus Christ. And He did indeed return to His place, where He will remain until the Israelite people acknowledge that they sinned against Him, as spoken of in Ps. 110:1.
Now, without wanting to turn this into a full-blown Scriptural debate (please feel free to email or freepmail me if you want one), I've given you a very standard Christian response, based almost entirely on the Scriptures we agree upon (barring one allusion to the NT) to your objection. There are other threads that we could chase down as well, but that's not my main point. My main point is that you shouldn't try to dismiss Jesus Christ on the basis of a one-liner that doesn't even really address the viewpoint that you're trying to refute.
If you want to pursue this, let's please take it off-forum rather than clog up Jim's space (and away from watchful eyes so that neither of us will be tempted to grandstand in front of others). If not, then you have my well-wishes and prayers, and I hope you'll have a good day.