The Sound Bites Of Jesus

[steve_bank]

I could never get the logical "reasoning" (or belief) behind these type of "Roman Jesus" theories:

The idea to write the narrative saying: Jesus is the 'King of Kings'. A King being high above Caesar, whilst causing the redundancy of worshipping Roman pagan gods.

If you take the collective sound bites of Jesus as a whole they make no sense.

The gospel writers had an audience in mind and it was not likely Jews. The supernatural son of god Jesus was blasphemous. They stonted people to death back ten.

The target was Roman gentiles. I'd say the author added the Caesar line with Roman convets or potential converts in mind.

Not professing allegiance to Rome would have been serious for any movement. Rome could be tolerant as long as the the armorer's and Rome's authority was acknowledged.

With Jewish nationalism and rebellion against Rome in the air a Jew in Jerusalem preaching acceptance of Roman authority would get no traction.

 

[ideologyhunter]

We have zero idea if Jesus ever said anything. We KNOW of lots of stuff he was said to have said, by non-contemporaneous writers.

The gospel writers were literate and wrote in Greek -- it is unlikely they were part of Jesus's circle at all. Besides that, my conclusion is that John's gospel should never have been canonized. The synoptic Jesus is terse, cryptic at times, makes blunt statements, and constructs little tales to teach his lessons. The Jesus is John is a philosopher-poet who creates extended metaphors about himself and speaks lyrically and abstractedly, and at length, and appears to know nothing of teaching through parables. How can Christians think John is quoting the same man that appears in MT, MK, and LK?

 

[Learner]

Jesus is the 'King of Kings'. A King being high above Caesar

That's nonsense. In the Roman Empire, a king was a tribal chief, and was unquestionably far below caesar.

Kings don't rule emperors, emperors rule kings. Even kings of kings.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

The bible uses the King title. It describes that use in context to Jesus being the King of a single Kingdom that is to be the whole heaven & earth. No multiple kingdoms, just one very big one - henceforth no use for the "emperor title" is warranted.

It's has nothing to with it being "my facts" nor is it my opinion...
...it's the obviousness of the plain textual description used in these writings.

 

[bilby]

it's the obviousness of the plain textual description used in these writings.

Yeah it's so obvious, that people have been killing each other for misinterpreting the "plain textual description" used in those writings for the best part of two thousand years.

 

[southernhybrid]

“But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you.“

Luke 6:27–28

Too bad the White Christian Nationalists have never read that one. I guess they aren't willing to listen.

I just can't take this Jesus cult stuff seriously, but some of the verses are nice. Too bad there are endless contradictions in the Bible. And, why in the world do Christians think that belief is the most important thing. Shouldn't it be more about character, peace, love and happiness and all that hippy stuff? We don't need religion to be good, which is very obvious these days in the US.

I think that Jesus was probably gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, he was always hanging out with a bunch of guys, had a special love for John, never got married or had children, which was very rare for a Rabbi during those times. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Maybe he wasn't a drag queen, but he certainly seemed like he may have been gay, unless he was simply asexual or in the closet. Anyway, I'm not even sure that there was an actual Jesus and if there was, he was just some guy who had a cult following that live on until today.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/04/jesus-queer-drag-king/

“…What we have in John’s Jesus is not only a “king of Israel” or “king of the Ioudaioi”, but also a drag king,” he claims in his footnoted and referenced writing. “[Christ] ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion.”

Ioudaioi is an Ancient Greek word that commonly translates to “Jew” or “Judean.”

“In addition, we find Jesus disrobing and rerobing in the episode that marks Jesus’ focus on the disciples with the coming of his ‘hour’. This disrobing… does not disclose anything about Jesus’ anatomy,” Liew writes. “Instead, it describes Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. As more than one commentator has pointed out, foot-washing was generally only done by Jewish women or non-Jewish slaves.”

“John is clear that Jesus is an Ioudaios; what John is less clear about is whether Jesus is a biological male. Like a literary striptease, this episode is suggestive, even seductive; it shows and withholds at the same time.”

An article in the school’s independent student journal called Liew’s interpretations “unconventional.” But this isn’t the first time scholars and theologians have suggested that Christ was a little (or more than a little) queer.

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” also known as “the beloved disciple,” also appears in the gospel of John. His identity and relationship with Jesus have long been the subject of debate.

Referenced six times in the gospel – yet unnamed – the disciple is often thought to be John the apostle, one of the twelve disciples and the author of the gospel itself. At other times, he’s identified as Lazarus, whom Jesus dramatically raised from the dead.


Whoever he was, some people think the disciple described as reclining on Jesus’ chest at the last supper was his gay lover.

And, did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality being wrong. I don't think so.

No the gospel Jesus did not, but he did reinforce Mosaic law La, forbid sex outside of marriage, and marriage as man and woman.

That's just because he was in the closet and felt he had to say that so he wouldn't piss off the Jews. Let's be honest. Jesus was just some guy and there are numerous translations of the Bible, so why are we taking any of them seriously?

It's all mythology!

I'll t be good and leave you all alone. So sorry if I interrupted this important conversation.

 

[Learner]

“But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you.“

Luke 6:27–28

Too bad the White Christian Nationalists have never read that one. I guess they aren't willing to listen.

I just can't take this Jesus cult stuff seriously, but some of the verses are nice.

It's nice to see you notice and 'acknowledge' the verse above. An atheist understands the obviousness of the description in the verse? Yay!

I agree it is a shame people (Christians) aren't willing to listen.

Shouldn't it be more about character, peace, love and happiness and all that hippy stuff?

That comes synonymously with the verse you already provided in Luke 6:27-28.

At least for the non-believers, the part that says: 'Loving your enemies and doing good to those that hate you'...
...wouldn't it also be nice for non-Christians to willingly listen to that line too?

I think that Jesus was probably gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, he was always hanging out with a bunch of guys, had a special love for John, never got married or had children, which was very rare for a Rabbi during those times. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Maybe he wasn't a drag queen, but he certainly seemed like he may have been gay, unless he was simply asexual or in the closet. Anyway, I'm not even sure that there was an actual Jesus and if there was, he was just some guy who had a cult following that live on until today.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/04/jesus-queer-drag-king/

[.....]
“John is clear that Jesus is an Ioudaios; what John is less clear about is whether Jesus is a biological male. Like a literary striptease, this identity and relationship with Jesus have long been the subject of debate[...]

Referenced six times in the gospel – yet unnamed – the disciple is often thought to be John the apostle, one of the twelve disciples and the author of the gospel itself. At other times, he’s identified as Lazarus, whom Jesus dramatically raised from the dead.

Whoever he was, some people think the disciple described as reclining on Jesus’ chest at the last supper was his gay lover.

And, did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality being wrong. I don't think so.

No the gospel Jesus did not, but he did reinforce Mosaic law La, forbid sex outside of marriage, and marriage as man and woman.

That's just because he was in the closet and felt he had to say that so he wouldn't piss off the Jews.

I put this in the same category as the idea of Jesus being portrayed as having "blond hair with blue eyes".

Let's be honest. Jesus was just some guy and there are numerous translations of the Bible, so why are we taking any of them seriously? It's all mythology!

You needn't be too concerned really. You can see by a lot of posts, you ain't the only one who thinks "mythology".

I'll t be good and leave you all alone. So sorry if I interrupted this important conversation.

No worries. Just consider yourself as being an interruption as one would do, watching a wee commercial-break, advertising a product that may or may not be useful to the viewer.

 

[steve_bank]

Back around the 70s there was a book about Jesus being gay. There were claims the RCC always had gay marriage. Whatever floats your boat. If a gay Jesus works for you, go with it.

Actually I am pretty sure Jesus was Irish.

He was over 30 and unmarried.
He hung around drinking with 12 guys.
His mother thought he was god.

Heard that one in the 80s.

 

[southernhybrid]

“But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you.“

Luke 6:27–28

Too bad the White Christian Nationalists have never read that one. I guess they aren't willing to listen.

I just can't take this Jesus cult stuff seriously, but some of the verses are nice.

It's nice to see you notice and 'acknowledge' the verse above. An atheist understands the obviousness of the description in the verse? Yay!

I agree it is a shame people (Christians) aren't willing to listen.

Shouldn't it be more about character, peace, love and happiness and all that hippy stuff?

That comes synonymously with the verse you already provided in Luke 6:27-28.

At least for the non-believers, the part that says: 'Loving your enemies and doing good to those that hate you'...
...wouldn't it also be nice for non-Christians to willingly listen to that line too?

I think that Jesus was probably gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, he was always hanging out with a bunch of guys, had a special love for John, never got married or had children, which was very rare for a Rabbi during those times. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Maybe he wasn't a drag queen, but he certainly seemed like he may have been gay, unless he was simply asexual or in the closet. Anyway, I'm not even sure that there was an actual Jesus and if there was, he was just some guy who had a cult following that live on until today.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/04/jesus-queer-drag-king/

[.....]
“John is clear that Jesus is an Ioudaios; what John is less clear about is whether Jesus is a biological male. Like a literary striptease, this identity and relationship with Jesus have long been the subject of debate[...]

Referenced six times in the gospel – yet unnamed – the disciple is often thought to be John the apostle, one of the twelve disciples and the author of the gospel itself. At other times, he’s identified as Lazarus, whom Jesus dramatically raised from the dead.

Whoever he was, some people think the disciple described as reclining on Jesus’ chest at the last supper was his gay lover.

And, did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality being wrong. I don't think so.

No the gospel Jesus did not, but he did reinforce Mosaic law La, forbid sex outside of marriage, and marriage as man and woman.

That's just because he was in the closet and felt he had to say that so he wouldn't piss off the Jews.

I put this in the same category as the idea of Jesus being portrayed as having "blond hair with blue eyes".

Let's be honest. Jesus was just some guy and there are numerous translations of the Bible, so why are we taking any of them seriously? It's all mythology!

You needn't be too concerned really. You can see by a lot of posts, you ain't the only one who thinks "mythology".

I'll t be good and leave you all alone. So sorry if I interrupted this important conversation.

No worries. Just consider yourself as being an interruption as one would do, watching a wee commercial-break, advertising a product that may or may not be useful to the viewer.

While I am not always able, I do try to love my enemies, actually more l like frenemies. I don't really have any enemies, but I do have friendly acquaintances that have tried to "save" me or who are Trump supporters but I still love them. Some people are easily persuaded by a cult leader. Since I don't believe we have much or any free will, I consider them all products of their genetic and environmental influences. Once they get to know me, even after learning I'm an atheist, we usually get along fine. I was raised by evangelicals and even after I became an atheist, my late mother and I were very close friends. She even vented to me about her Christian friends. I miss her to this day.

I know we are off topic, but do you really think that belief is an important part of the words in the Bible or do you think that your God is more interested in character? it seems very egotistical for any god or leader for that matter to be so concerned about their subjects worshipping them. My parents told me when I was a little girl that my Catholic friends were all going to hell, but as my mom aged, she told my husband that god would never send someone as good as me, to hell. I was happy for her. She finally realized that the idea that only the so called "saved" would be rewarded with eternal life wasn't sensible. I don't believe in an after life, but I think it must be hard for hardcore evangelicals to think their children who have left the faith will suffer eternal torture. Crazy stuff. No? I'll try to find another nice verse later so we are back on topic.

 

[southernhybrid]

Here's one more for Leaner.

1. Luke 14:12-14
   He said also to the one who had invited him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’

I always give to homeless people without the expectation of being repaid at the resurrection of the righteous. Again, one not need to believe that there is a god or that Jesus was the son of god, to have compassion for the poor.

I do invite friends over for dinner or sometimes treat them out to lunch, but I've never been invited to their homes for dinner, so I don't do it with the expectation of being repaid. Some of my friends have much less than I do, and none of them are wealthy. I do it because I enjoy their companionship and I also enjoy sharing food, which by the way is a human universal found in all known cultures. Religion has nothing to do with it. But, I do agree it's good to share food with the less fortunate.

 

[DBT]

Don't worry about tomorrow, it's all taken care of. Just have faith.

''Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life

“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’

For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.'' - Matthew 6:25-34

 

[No Robots]

^Atheists misread the Bible exactly as do the Christians. The Bible is a Jewish work and requires a Jewish understanding. Here is Harry Waton:

Now, suppose that Jesus was so naive, what did he expect, did he expect that the Jews would give up working, and look up to their heavenly Father for food, clothing and shelter? Let the Christians say what they please; let them quibble and argue till the end of time; let them try their utmost to prove that that was what Jesus actually wanted, and the Jews need not pay any attention to all this nonsense. Jesus was a Jew, and nothing can be conceived more foreign to the Jew than this nonsense. The Jews are eminently practical. Jehovah could not win the Jews in an eternity with promises in heaven; Jehovah could win the Jews only with promises right here on earth. Jehovah promised the Jews this earth as an eternal inheritance. If the earth is not good enough for the Christians, they are welcome to go to heaven, the earth is good enough for the Jews, and the Jews want nothing more and nothing else than this earth. The earth is the most beautiful planet in existence, and is the best place for man. The Jews could not bear for a moment a heaven in which the righteous sit and rejoice in the glory of God, and listen to the sweet signing of angels. No, and a thousand times no, Jesus did not mean the nonsense which millions of Christians believed. What, then, did Jesus mean? Jesus meant just what the communists say; Jesus wanted exactly what the communists want. Like the Jewish prophets, Jesus wanted for the Jews a kingdom of heaven on earth, in which all shall enjoy an abundance of food, clothing and shelter, and in which they shall all live in freedom, peace, and enjoy happiness. And this is exactly what he told the Jews.

Atheists accept the Christian interpretation as the true interpretation, and simply expose how inane that interpretation makes the Bible seem. They never consider that the Christians have always misinterpreted the Bible. Atheists never seek the Jewish interpretation of the Bible. The atheists thus share with the Christians the same misunderstanding of the Bible.

 

[DBT]

^Atheists misread the Bible exactly as do the Christians. The Bible is a Jewish work and requires a Jewish understanding. Here is Harry Waton:

Now, suppose that Jesus was so naive, what did he expect, did he expect that the Jews would give up working, and look up to their heavenly Father for food, clothing and shelter? Let the Christians say what they please; let them quibble and argue till the end of time; let them try their utmost to prove that that was what Jesus actually wanted, and the Jews need not pay any attention to all this nonsense. Jesus was a Jew, and nothing can be conceived more foreign to the Jew than this nonsense. The Jews are eminently practical. Jehovah could not win the Jews in an eternity with promises in heaven; Jehovah could win the Jews only with promises right here on earth. Jehovah promised the Jews this earth as an eternal inheritance. If the earth is not good enough for the Christians, they are welcome to go to heaven, the earth is good enough for the Jews, and the Jews want nothing more and nothing else than this earth. The earth is the most beautiful planet in existence, and is the best place for man. The Jews could not bear for a moment a heaven in which the righteous sit and rejoice in the glory of God, and listen to the sweet signing of angels. No, and a thousand times no, Jesus did not mean the nonsense which millions of Christians believed. What, then, did Jesus mean? Jesus meant just what the communists say; Jesus wanted exactly what the communists want. Like the Jewish prophets, Jesus wanted for the Jews a kingdom of heaven on earth, in which all shall enjoy an abundance of food, clothing and shelter, and in which they shall all live in freedom, peace, and enjoy happiness. And this is exactly what he told the Jews.

Atheists accept the Christian interpretation as the true interpretation, and simply expose how inane that interpretation makes the Bible seem. They never consider that the Christians have always misinterpreted the Bible. Atheists never seek the Jewish interpretation of the Bible. The atheists thus share with the Christians the same misunderstanding of the Bible.

I made no interpretation. I quoted what is written, which basically tells us to have faith in God, that God will provide for our needs.

 

[steve_bank]

Of course those other Christians are not true Christians, I am a true Christian,

A handful of isolated unconnected sound bites attributed to somebody called Jesus is really all they have. Endless repetition and interpretation of brief quotes.

 

[Learner]

I see. By that notion perhaps Christians should give way to the logic.

It is most unfortunate...
..."a handful of Jesus "unconnected" sound bites can't compete with the bucket loads of "connected" sound-bites attributed to Alexander-the-Great or even Genghis Khan".

"Christianity is in peril!"

 

[steve_bank]

Since the Reformation Christianity is whatever anyone makes it to be through interpret ion and just inventing things, IOW clamming 'This is what god wants'

Before the Reformation the RCC defined in strict detailed theology what it meant to be a Christian, little of it based in bible. Ordained priests were the intermediary between you ad god.

Along came Luther who said anyone was free to read and the interpret scripture and commune idirectly with god. No [o[e or priest required.

Few will dispute Jesus was a Jew who in the NT never reduced Judaism, he reinforces Jewish prophets and Mosaic Law. IOW Leviticus. I expect an HJ would have kept kosher so to speak.

There is a set of commentary and teachings that go along with the bible in Judaism. If you want to follow Jesus, live as a Jew.

It was the writings of Paul that became the foundation of Christianity for gentiles.

So, there is no consistent morality in Christianity, just quotes from the gospels and short pieces in the NT. Along with 2009 years of commentary and interpretation right through today.

In contrast Buddhism has a well defined morality and code of behavior.

In Asia Confucianism.

The Greeks had coherent discourse in morality and ethics.

Hinduism is the oldest tradition.

Islam has the Pillars Of Islam

Five Pillars of Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, all Christians have are sound bites from somebody called Jesus in four inconsistent gospels. It is appealing because you don't have todo much work and thinking, just quote like other Christians do and believe. It simulates those feel good brain chemicals.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Christians will have to show me where Jesus decided to move away from the observances of Judaism. (If it's the last lines of Matthew, I'd still like to know why he couldn't have made this the core of his ministry. Something sketch there.) He was celebrating a high holy day just before his execution. In the scripture he lived by, the penalty for apostasy was death by stoning. Then Paul tells us that it has been revealed to him that the law is dead, that former signs, sacraments, and rules like circumcision and dietary laws are no longer binding. He doesn't credit Jesus with telling him this. And is there any Christian church that is as excited as Jesus was, to perpetuate the 12 tribes of Israel up in heaven, with the 12 disciples? (Don't know which tribe Judas would've fostered.) Advice to Christians: if he really comes back, maybe in another 2000 years, or 20,000, who knows, don't offer him any of your Christmas ham. Major cringe there.

 

[Learner]

Since the Reformation Christianity is whatever anyone makes it to be through interpret ion and just inventing things, IOW clamming 'This is what god wants'

Why don't you highlight those bits of "invention" that seem so obvious to you?

But then...you must mean various interpretations. What are the main differences that separates Christians from the convention, e.g. those that do not believe Jesus is the 'Son of God' and Saviour?

Before the Reformation the RCC defined in strict detailed theology what it meant to be a Christian, little of it based in bible. Ordained priests were the intermediary between you ad god.

Along came Luther who said anyone was free to read and the interpret scripture and commune idirectly with god. No [o[e or priest required.

This is so late 15th and 16th century. Churches were already formed in the first century with the concept of Christianity still understood today.

The differences among denominations who all believe in the doctrinal 'convention', i.e. that 'Christ is saviour' are but trivial things in comparison, causing no affecting issues to the widely accepted gospel message.

Few will dispute Jesus was a Jew who in the NT never reduced Judaism, he reinforces Jewish prophets and Mosaic Law. IOW Leviticus. I expect an HJ would have kept kosher so to speak.

Just Kosher?...

There is a set of commentary and teachings that go along with the bible in Judaism. If you want to follow Jesus, live as a Jew.

...And about putting people to death as according to the commandments? Can you show me people still do this... obey the commandments?


Following Jesus 'as according to Jesus' is a safe bet if you find it's difficult to live as a Jew (in terms of the Christian faith).

It was the writings of Paul that became the foundation of Christianity for gentiles.

No issue with the statement...

...IOW, If it wasn't Paul it would be someone else, no issues there (ignoring the four gospels and the other writers).

So, there is no consistent morality in Christianity, just quotes from the gospels and short pieces in the NT. Along with 2009 years of commentary and interpretation right through today.

So short are the pieces it's seems from your claim.
Are you able to post them? They should all fit in one post.

In contrast Buddhism has a well defined morality and code of behavior.

In Asia Confucianism.

The Greeks had coherent discourse in morality and ethics.

Hinduism is the oldest tradition.

Islam has the Pillars Of Islam

Five Pillars of Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Love your neighbour, love your enemies..is short and simple. Easy to remember that no scholar, priest, bishop, rabbi, imam is necessary to interpret these "little sound bites" to understand it's context.

So, all Christians have are sound bites from somebody called Jesus in four inconsistent gospels. It is appealing because you don't have todo much work and thinking, just quote like other Christians do and believe. It simulates those feel good brain chemicals.

It stimulates the little grey cells indeed. Can't argue with that.
I'd be arguing against a non argument anyway.

 

[steve_bank]

Down the rabbit hole we go. Deatng ragesust as a proof of faith is essential for Chrtians.

Yo are the Christian. What separates Calvinists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, our Southern Baptist Convection, Russian Orthodox, Coptics?

The Internet is your friend, a journey of discovery awaits you.

As to inventive review my posts on the Council Of Nicaea and read the Wiki page on it. The Trinity is an invention.

A god of universal love is an invention.

The idea that Jesus ed Mosaic Law and created a new cove net, the New Testament, and Levitcus rules longer allied is an invention and counter to a quote by Jesus fearmonger Moses..

What you have as theology and a NT cannon was a political compromise between warring Christians.factions.

A question was the divinity of Jesus. There were writings and those who disputed it, and they were suppressed.

Wars have been fought between Christians.

What you have are

The 10 Commandments which most cultures have in different forms. Don't murder, lie, steal, or boff your neighbor's wife. Monogamy. Worship the god of the culture.

Love your neighbors.

Buddhist compassion for all living things predates Christianity by abut 300 Years. The 8 Fold Path.

There are 613 dictates that can pulled out of the OT that god says to do or not do. Some bizarre. Take a look. Jews today do not follow them. A Christian literalist who says he bible is the inerrant truth by god has some serious things to work out.

The OT was written at different times by different groups, it is not a consistent moral code. The OT is disconnected sound bites. One quite mines for an occasion.

The 613 Mitzvot

The 613 Mitzvot

www.jmu.edu

That there is no consistent morality in Christianity is evidenced by the history of Chrtianity.

 

[Learner]

Christians will have to show me where Jesus decided to move away from the observances of Judaism. (If it's the last lines of Matthew, I'd still like to know why he couldn't have made this the core of his ministry. Something sketch there.)

You were unaware then that's it's written: Jesus came to fulfill the laws not to abolish them. That I can show you.

He was celebrating a high holy day just before his execution. In the scripture he lived by, the penalty for apostasy was death by stoning. Then Paul tells us that it has been revealed to him that the law is dead, that former signs, sacraments, and rules like circumcision and dietary laws are no longer binding. He doesn't credit Jesus with telling him this.

What was Paul's reason that caused him to say the 'law is dead'? Depending if you can answer that, you may find that the very cause gets the credit.

And is there any Christian church that is as excited as Jesus was, to perpetuate the 12 tribes of Israel up in heaven, with the 12 disciples?

I'm not sure at this 'moment in time' to be honest.

(Don't know which tribe Judas would've fostered.) Advice to Christians: if he really comes back, maybe in another 2000 years, or 20,000, who knows, don't offer him any of your Christmas ham. Major cringe there.

The interesting part of your post. It shouldn't take 2000 years or 20,000 years to see Jesus! That could be a misleading concept that's not in line with the bible .

For example: The longest wait for any individual would be120 years (if we are to say this is the maximum life-span for humans) and/or much less depending on circumstances. Basically: You'll either see Jesus during (or within) your life-time, or after you die.

'The time is at hand'.

 

[DBT]

The promise was that some in the audience would still be alive to witness the return of Jesus in power and glory.