This is part of an earlier (June 2000) discussion at nz.soc.religion. More on the tiresome "reconstructed Christ" - or denatured Christ might be better.

David Bisman wrote:

If one reads Matthew 25:34-46 what they will notice is that what Jesus actually taught here is that one's future redemption does not hinge on a belief "on" him (Jesus). What he taught in these verses was that one's future redemption hinged on how one treats and acts towards their fellow human. As Bart D. Ehrman writes in "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium" (Oxford University Press, 1999), p.136:

The title of your post is appropriate. But it is you that are misquoting Jesus. Maybe one of your problems is allowing someone else do your thinking for you. Instead of quoting what others think Jesus meant why don't you just read the passages in context? I'm not trying to be insulting - I just continue to be amazed that people snip verses out of context and then commit eisegesis with the same instrument.

This is the methodology of the Jesus reconstructionists: "Hmm...Jesus couldn't have said this...must be Pauline (or even Pseudo-pauline). But this comment sounds authentic to me...it goes in this pile of scraps of the historical Jesus." Scissors in hand, our would-be guide (in this case Ehrman) proceeds through the rest of scripture. When he is finished he has several neat piles laid out on Procrustes bed, he grabs the handful of "authentic" sayings and runs to the publishers with his findings and impresses the gullible and willingly blind with specious "proofs". Lets take a look at some of these "nuggets"(When I walk my dog, I am reminded of another definition for that word.)

Well then, lets walk behind Mr. Ehrman tissue and bag in hand...

"What is striking about this story, when considered in view of the criterion of dissimilarity, is that there is nothing distinctively *Christian* about it. That is to say, the future judgment is not based on belief in Jesus' death and resurrection, but on doing good things for those in need. Later Christians - including most notably Paul (see, e.g., 1 Thess. 4:14-18), but also the writers of the Gospels - maintained that it was belief in Jesus that would bring a person into the coming Kingdom. But nothing in this passage even hints at the need to believe in Jesus per se: these people didn't even *know* him. What matters is helping the poor, oppressed, and needy. It doesn't seem likely that a Christian would formulate a passage in just this way. The conclusion? It probably goes back to Jesus."

The purpose of this passage is to underscore that faith without works is useless. Jesus in these chapters assumes the necessity of faith. Matt 24:45 speaks of the "faithful servant". Many other passages can be found just in these few chapters. Matt 7:13-23 speaks of the inevitability of true faith producing fruit.

It is true that there is not a direct verse in Matthew where Jesus says, "Believe in my death, burial and ressurection and you will be saved". Such a statement is not needed. The proof is shown by steps that anyone who is willing and intelligent can follow; He refers to Himself (Christ) as their only leader (Matt23:10). He is the Son of God in a unique way (Matt 22:41-45).He refers to himself as "your Lord" and "Son of Man". It seems tedious to go on. The only way wisefools like Albert Schweitzer can arrive at a de-Godded Christ is by selectively ignoring the (to them) damning evidence.

That Jesus is in accord with Moses should not be surprising...that he is out of accord with subsequent Hellenised Christianity should not be surprising...what surprises me is that so few bother to open their eyes and see that Jesus, the Jew, was executed by the Romans for sedition and then misappropriated by the Early Greek Church and deified (blasphemously) in the pagan manner.

That Jesus is in accord with the Jewish experience is not surprising, or that that most Jewish of NT writings, the gospel of Matthew, should strike a cord of affinity with Jewish hearts. The Jews were, or should have been prepared by experience and unfolding oracles to accept their Messiah. The greeks OTOH were being prepared by a patient and thorough demonstration over years of the incompleteness of their vaunted wisdom. Their high point was probably the "divine guess" of Plato and those few insights of the best of the earlier cynics. By the time of the New Testament however they were sinking fast and in desparate need of the outreached hand of God - the foolishness of preaching of Jesus Christ (1st Corinthians 1:18-25).

Hellenized religion was bankrupt and this became embarrassingly obvious in just a few generations. By the time of Julian, even when he wanted to reconstruct paganism. he couldn't find a viable, cohesive religion fit for his purpose.

If Jesus could see what Christians have done to his message he'd roll in his grave.

Your fictitious Jesus may be rolling in the grave. Mine is in the heavenlies and in my heart! I invite you to believe in mine.

First, concerning the decalogue, the whole purpose of Jesus mentioning and expanding on it on the Sermon on the Mount is that it becomes obvious that the true spiritual demands of the Law (the 10 Commandments) are impossible to fulfill. He is the Lawkeeper that all are saved through. Take a look at each of the commandments that Jesus mentions here and see how he widens the parameters from the mere act (adultery, for instance) to the inner intent (lustful thoughts of a woman just seen). It becomes obvious that none of us can brag that we have obeyed these. That is why it is good news that Jesus Christ has obeyed them in every point - and to the fullest intent. That is why belief in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary and is central to Matthews gospel ( and a foundation to all other books of God's Word).