I'll comment on this religious stuff briefly but I think it would be a good idea for the thread to get back on track - although it's hard to see how it can do so, given that the question in the OP has been pretty comprehensively answered.
Out of interest, Plotinus, how common is the Apocalypse-prophet interpretation of the historical Jesus in academic circles? I'm aware that it's quite prominent, but the popular reluctance to recast Jesus as any greater a departure from his "classic form" than a sort of spiritual philosopher means that it's hard to get any real image of an academic consensus without diving into material that is way over my head.
The correct term is
eschatological prophet, rather than apocalypse. Technically, apocalypse is a genre of literature concerned with exposing the true reality. Typically, apocalypses are eschatological in subject matter (that is, dealing with the end of the world) because it is at the end of the world that the true reality becomes apparent.
The interpretation of Jesus as basically an eschatological prophet is pretty common among New Testament scholars. It was of course Albert Schweitzer's interpretation of Jesus, and the basis for his claim that Jesus was a sort of tragic hero, who was fundamentally deluded and realised his delusion in his dying moments - hence his cry that God had abandoned him. More recently, a much more historically rigorous version of Jesus the eschatologist has been presented by E.P. Sanders.
The basic problem with Jesus is that the evidence goes in different directions. It's really about his Kingdom of God sayings and how you interpret them, but there are different categories of these sayings. There are sayings which seem to indicate that he was an eschatological prophet and thought that the Kingdom of God was coming soon and would break up the established world when it did. However, there are other sayings which suggest that the Kingdom is a worldly reality, existing within society or within the individual. So it's a matter of which sayings you take to be the most fundamental. I don't think there is any scholarly consensus on this matter.
I don't know anyone who hates Mother Theresa.
Believe me, there are plenty of people who do.
I think the generation He is refering to is all humans.
That is a good way to get around the problem that Jesus apparently said something false, but it's a pretty strained interpretation. As far as I know, there is no reason to interpret the saying in this way
other than out of a desire to avoid believing that Jesus said something false. And that's not a very good interpretative method.
In fact there is very good evidence that Jesus did believe that the Kingdom was coming very soon, and that this would be a great eschatological event. This evidence includes the fact that the early Christians all believed this too, and that they had to keep revising their expectations as it kept on not happening. You can follow the history of these revised expectations in the different books of the New Testament which date from different periods. I'm sure I've talked about this at greater length in the Ask a Theologian thread, linked to in my sig.