Andrew early on pointed out that he agreed there is a difference between the Jesus of History and the Historical Jesus. I agree with Mr. Carr that the Jesus of History is not enough to build a faith upon, if that is what he was intending. The Historical Jesus exists in the kerygma.

I agree with just about everything Andrew says about the very earliest Christian community expecting the eschaton. Remember, the authentic writings of Paul are earlier than the synoptic and Johannine Gospel writings. Jesus was wrong (but see below) and Paul was wrong and, thereafter, the communities were left to scramble for meaning that would save face and credibility in the light of failure. The synoptics and John are largely reflective of this scramble. At least this is the hypothesis I am working with at this time.

But I just can’t get to the point of support for the notion that the eschaton and the parousia have already occured or that the earliest communities thought that these events had already occured. The word eschaton is a word of religion and has a specific meaning, the end of all time. It can’t, in my view, be appropriated to mean the end of "a" time. The resurrection can’t be construed as the second coming of Jesus the Christ because the crucified Christ had never before been prior to the crucifixion. Finally, in faith, without a time when injustice and suffering is rectified, I see little reason to continue to suffer now, or in the alternative, to walk the narrow path when the broader path is so much more fun.

I accept that Jesus was the prophet of a proleptic eschaton providing a foretaste of the Kingdom of God.