Does Matthew 25:14-46 teach non-Christians can go to heaven?

[punkdbass]

Just curious to hear everyone's interpretations of the last 2 stories found in Matthew 25.

-Matthew 25:14-30 features a parable in which a King gives his first slave 5 talents(type of money), the second he gives 2 talents, and the third he gives one. The first slave invests his talents and earns 5 more, the second slave invests his talents and earns 2 more, and the last slave burries his talent in the ground and does nothing with it. The first 2 slaves go to heaven, and the last slave goes to hell. My interpretation of this parable is that God gives every one of us different levels of skills, talents, wisdom, understanding, etc, and that all that matters is we sincerely try to use these things for good. It doesnt matter if we do more good(earn 5 talents) than others(only earn 2), all that matters is that we sincerely tried to use what we were given in life for good. And that those who refuse to try and use these things for good(slave who burried his 1 talent), are the one's who are denied access to heaven.

-Matthew 25:31-46 features a story about the day of judgment where Jesus divides those going to hell and those going to heaven. He says to those who are heaven-bound: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.. And the righteous respond, "‘Lord when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ...etc. and Jesus says: ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

My interpretation of this story is that even non-Christians(who dont know Jesus) who feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick, etc can go to heaven. Both of these stories found in Matthew 25, suggest to me that salvation can be achieved through works of compassion. Just curious to see how you guys interpret these 2 stores, please share Perhaps my interpretations are way off the boat or heavily reflect my Jewish bias.. but I really enjoyed reading the gospel of Matthew and found it interesting that so little of the dogma behind Jesus's sacrifice and blood atonement was present in the gospel of Matthew -which is supposed to accurately depict Jesus's life and teachings.

 

[Me Myself]

I agree 100%, but mostly cause of your second mathew, the first one I think it istoo much of a subtle comparison.

If someone visits me when I am in jail, gives me food when I hunger, gave me cloth when I was naked, and welcomed me when I was a stranger, and in the same breath he trulyand honestly believe I am a figment of imagination (Jesus, I mean) WHAT THE HECK DO I CARE?! THAT GUY IS NOT GOING TO BE ETERNALY TORTURED!

Who cares if he got the fact wrong of what happened 2000 years ago? He is a loving person today, and I surely thank him for it. If his love towards me is not God, what is God then?

 

[punkdbass]

I agree 100%, but mostly cause of your second mathew, the first one I think it istoo much of a subtle comparison.

If someone visits me when I am in jail, gives me food when I hunger, gave me cloth when I was naked, and welcomed me when I was a stranger, and in the same breath he trulyand honestly believe I am a figment of imagination (Jesus, I mean) WHAT THE HECK DO I CARE?! THAT GUY IS NOT GOING TO BE ETERNALY TORTURED!

Who cares if he got the fact wrong of what happened 2000 years ago? He is a loving person today, and I surely thank him for it. If his love towards me is not God, what is God then?

great points I'm pretty sure I remember you making reference to Matthew 25:31-46 and giving your interpretation of it in a few different threads. Your interpretation makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Me Myself]

great points I'm pretty sure I remember you making reference to Matthew 25:31-46 and giving your interpretation of it in a few different threads. Your interpretation makes a lot of sense to me.

thanks

 

[james2ko]

Just curious to hear everyone's interpretations of the last 2 stories found in Matthew 25.

-Matthew 25:14-30 features a parable in which a King gives his first slave 5 talents(type of money), the second he gives 2 talents, and the third he gives one. The first slave invests his talents and earns 5 more, the second slave invests his talents and earns 2 more, and the last slave burries his talent in the ground and does nothing with it. The first 2 slaves go to heaven, and the last slave goes to hell. My interpretation of this parable is that God gives every one of us different levels of skills, talents, wisdom, understanding, etc, and that all that matters is we sincerely try to use these things for good. It doesnt matter if we do more good(earn 5 talents) than others(only earn 2), all that matters is that we sincerely tried to use what we were given in life for good. And that those who refuse to try and use these things for good(slave who burried his 1 talent), are the one's who are denied access to heaven.

Christ gave many parables. Some were directed to the general public others were directed to His disciples. This one was for his disciples. He illustrates how His servants ---(Christians) must not remain stagnant and use the talents given for the advancement of God's work. Those who do nothing, will forfeit their opportunity to attain eternal life and have to be eliminated in a very real lake of fire. Those who use them--even in the smallest capacity---will ultimately be given eternal life along with the privilege to rule real earthly cities (Rev 5:10), as evidenced by the parallel account in Luk 19:12-26.

-Matthew 25:31-46 features a story about the day of judgment where Jesus divides those going to hell and those going to heaven. He says to those who are heaven-bound: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.. And the righteous espond, "‘Lord when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ...etc. and Jesus says: ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

My interpretation of this story is that even non-Christians(who dont know Jesus) who feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick, etc can go to heaven. Both of these stories found in Matthew 25, suggest to me that salvation can be achieved through works of compassion. Just curious to see how you guys interpret these 2 stores, please share Perhaps my interpretations are way off the boat or heavily reflect my Jewish bias.. but I really enjoyed reading the gospel of Matthew and found it interesting that so little of the dogma behind Jesus's sacrifice and blood atonement was present in the gospel of Matthew -which is supposed to accurately depict Jesus's life and teachings.

This parable is also directed to His disciples. This is evidenced by the fact the disobedient disciples also refer to Christ as "Lord" (Mat 25:44)--something a non-christian would not claim. Christ's true disciples are being evaluated or judged by the things they do in this life (1 Pet 4:17). Their reward or sentence will be carried out when Christ returns.

 

[punkdbass]

Intersting points James, although I am not convinced that these 2 parables refer exclusively to Jesus's disciples. I think the first parable could just as easily be referring to God, or the "Father" as the king, who obviously gives many things to all of his creatures, regardless if they serve Him or not.

For the second story, it appears that Jesus, in a divine way, divides the righteous and wicked to proclaim judgment. Assuming there were non-Christians among the righteous, surely they would realize that the being about to judge them is Lord, and thus humble themselves and refer to him as such.

And the other main reason I have to believe it could refer to non-Christians is because of the fact that clearly some of the righteous did not know Jesus. For if they truly knew Jesus, they would have "recognized" him when they gave him something to eat, drink, visited him, helped him, etc. If they truly knew Jesus they would have known that their acts of compassion were done to Jesus himself.

Which leads me to believe that some of these righteous did not truly know Jesus and thus could be considered non-Christians, or at least on a similar level as such.

 

[Pegg]

Just curious to hear everyone's interpretations of the last 2 stories found in Matthew 25.

-Matthew 25:14-30 features a parable in which a King gives his first slave 5 talents(type of money), the second he gives 2 talents, and the third he gives one. The first slave invests his talents and earns 5 more, the second slave invests his talents and earns 2 more, and the last slave burries his talent in the ground and does nothing with it. The first 2 slaves go to heaven, and the last slave goes to hell. My interpretation of this parable is that God gives every one of us different levels of skills, talents, wisdom, understanding, etc, and that all that matters is we sincerely try to use these things for good. It doesnt matter if we do more good(earn 5 talents) than others(only earn 2), all that matters is that we sincerely tried to use what we were given in life for good. And that those who refuse to try and use these things for good(slave who burried his 1 talent), are the one's who are denied access to heaven.

our view is that this parable is describing how some christians would not be willing to do the work assigned to them. The talents represent Kingdom truths and investing them represents spreading those truths to people. The slave who hid his talent in the ground was not willing to share the kingdom message and for that reason he was rejected by the king.

You are correct in that each christian will share his talents to the degree possible for him in his own circumstances. Some may be able to do more in the work but others may have more restrictive circumstances to do so. As long as we each do what we are able to do the king is happy...but if we bury our talents and refuse to share with anyone, he will not be.

-Matthew 25:31-46 features a story about the day of judgment where Jesus divides those going to hell and those going to heaven. He says to those who are heaven-bound: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.. And the righteous respond, "‘Lord when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ...etc. and Jesus says: ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

My interpretation of this story is that even non-Christians(who dont know Jesus) who feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick, etc can go to heaven. Both of these stories found in Matthew 25, suggest to me that salvation can be achieved through works of compassion. Just curious to see how you guys interpret these 2 stores, please share Perhaps my interpretations are way off the boat or heavily reflect my Jewish bias.. but I really enjoyed reading the gospel of Matthew and found it interesting that so little of the dogma behind Jesus's sacrifice and blood atonement was present in the gospel of Matthew -which is supposed to accurately depict Jesus's life and teachings.

you may notice at the end of the explanation Jesus gives he says " just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me"

Who Jesus views as his 'family' (other translations say his 'brothers') would be dependent on how they received his message and if they put faith in him. In the first century, the jews who became his followers are the ones he viewed as his family. So you would have to know who this family is today and do good to those ones to receive his blessing. I dont believe this means that anyone who does good to someone else is going to heaven because the scriptures speak about people being blessed with eternal life on earth.

 

[Bob Dixon]

Yes, it does. Compassion, after all, is the only "true" religion.

Also, I'd like you to check out Luke 12:35-48, in which he says that the people who are unaware of the truth (whatever that truth may be) and transgress are punished much less than the people who are aware and still transgress.
This is simplified in John 9:40-41, when he tells the Pharisees that they'd be innocent if they were "blind" but, because they "see", they are guilty.

So, in summation, the only ones who are truly "guilty" are those who know that something is wrong and still partake in it.

Of course, these verses are never, ever, ever quoted by televangelists or anyone like that. They just, kind of, sit there, in the Gospels, and stagnate, unused.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Acts [17 vs 30,31] adds that the times of ignorance is past. The good news of God's kingdom is being proclaimed on an international scale today. [Matthew 24 v 14]

Since the world will be 'judged in righteousness' by the resurrected Christ Jesus then no one innocent will be in harm's way.

-2nd Peter 3 v 9

 

[URAVIP2ME]

-Matthew 25:31-46 features a story about the day of judgment where Jesus divides those going to hell and those going to heaven. He says to those who are heaven-bound: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.. And the righteous respond, "‘Lord when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ...etc. and Jesus says: ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."
My interpretation of this story is that even non-Christians(who dont know Jesus) who feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick, etc can go to heaven. Both of these stories found in Matthew 25, suggest to me that salvation can be achieved through works of compassion. Just curious to see how you guys interpret these 2 stores, please share Perhaps my interpretations are way off the boat or heavily reflect my Jewish bias.. but I really enjoyed reading the gospel of Matthew and found it interesting that so little of the dogma behind Jesus's sacrifice and blood atonement was present in the gospel of Matthew -which is supposed to accurately depict Jesus's life and teachings.

First of all, where did you read the word 'hell' in verses 31-46 ?_______
Where does it say the righteous ones of verse 37 are heaven bound?
Aren't the righteous 'sheep' alive and living on earth at the 'time of separation' of verses 31,32? Where is their death mentioned?
Those living humble sheep do good to Jesus 'brothers' of Matthew 25 v 40.
The sheep are Not the 'brothers', but do good to Jesus 'brothers'
'Flesh and blood' can not inherit heaven. It is Jesus 'brothers' [1st Cor. 15 v 50] that are resurrected to heaven, Not the living sheep of verse 32.
-Luke 12 v 32; John 10 v 16

You mention the 'sheep' as in providing material needs to Jesus 'brothers'.
In Jesus illustration of the neighborly good Samaritan Jesus was instructing to widen out in showing love even to strangers in need. But unlike the injured stranger, Jesus 'brothers' [like Jesus] were involved in a spiritual work. Sheep-like ones [Luke 8 vs 1, 3] ministered out of their own belongings to help 'spiritual brothers' to stay on, or keep on, in the preaching disciple-making work.

Matthew 25 v 46 mentions the righteous sheep going into everlasting life.
It does not say going to heaven but says everlasting life. Those living sheep can remain alive and keep right on living right into the start of Jesus 1000-year reign over earth without having to die. -Rev. 7 v 14

On the other hand, the 'goats' go into everlasting punishment.
It does Not say everlasting hell.
The Bible's hell is temporary. -Rev. 20 vs 13,14; Rev. 1 v 18
2nd Thess. 1 v 9 equates everlasting punishment with: destruction.

Matthew 25 v 41 mentions everlasting fire for them and Satan.
Literal fire destroys and does not keep an object burning forever.
Jesus destroys Satan according to Hebrews 2 v 14 B
Satan ends up in 'second death' -Rev. 21 v 8
So, 'second death' is a fitting term for 'destruction' or destroyed forever.
-Psalm 92 v 7

 

[Quagmire]

I think the first parable could just as easily be referring to God, or the "Father" as the king, who obviously gives many things to all of his creatures, regardless if they serve Him or not.

For the second story, it appears that Jesus, in a divine way, divides the righteous and wicked to proclaim judgment. Assuming there were non-Christians among the righteous, surely they would realize that the being about to judge them is Lord, and thus humble themselves and refer to him as such.

And the other main reason I have to believe it could refer to non-Christians is because of the fact that clearly some of the righteous did not know Jesus. For if they truly knew Jesus, they would have "recognized" him when they gave him something to eat, drink, visited him, helped him, etc. If they truly knew Jesus they would have known that their acts of compassion were done to Jesus himself.

Which leads me to believe that some of these righteous did not truly know Jesus and thus could be considered non-Christians, or at least on a similar level as such.

Good points, Punkdbass. I read Matthew the same way. In fact, I think there are all kinds of hints all throughout Matthew that suggest that anyone, regardless of what they call themselves, is eligible for Heaven/redemption/salvation--whatever you want to call it. Just as there are hints that what someone calls themselves may not help them:

[Matthew 15:7-9
New International Version (NIV)
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules. ’[a] ”

Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

 

[james2ko]

1. The context of these parables actually begins when the disciples asked Christ, privately, to shed some light on His return (Mat 24:3). If you examine the narrative in Mat 24 carefully, you'll notice Christ addressed them in the second person plural (you, yours). This indicates the narrative applied to events and things His disciples should watch for. In chapter 25, Christ continues the narrative with a series of parables to demonstrate what His servants [disciples] should and should not be doing while awaiting His return.

Intersting points James, although I am not convinced that these 2 parables refer exclusively to Jesus's disciples. I think the first parable could just as easily be referring to God, or the "Father" as the king, who obviously gives many things to all of his creatures, regardless if they serve Him or not.

2. The NT uses "virgin" as a metaphor to describe the true followers of Christ:

2Co_11:2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Rev 14:4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb [Christ]
​

Could we not safely conclude the parable of the ten virgins refers to the wise and foolish followers of Christ?

For the second story, it appears that Jesus, in a divine way, divides the righteous and wicked to proclaim judgment. Assuming there were non-Christians among the righteous, surely they would realize that the being about to judge them is Lord, and thus humble themselves and refer to him as such.

3. This would imply that a deceived (Rev 12:9) non-Christian, under the sway of the devil (1 Jn 5:19), whom God has allowed to rule this current world (Jn 16:11), who is alive at Christ's return and did not perform these good deeds throughout their lives, will be judged and condemned to eternal punishment?

And the other main reason I have to believe it could refer to non-Christians is because of the fact that clearly some of the righteous did not know Jesus. For if they truly knew Jesus, they would have "recognized" him when they gave him something to eat, drink, visited him, helped him, etc. If they truly knew Jesus they would have known that their acts of compassion were done to Jesus himself. Which leads me to believe that some of these righteous did not truly know Jesus and thus could be considered non-Christians, or at least on a similar level as such.

4. The whole point of this dissertation is to illustrate how these righteous were aware of the right thing to do but failed to do it. This, in essence, classifies them as wicked. Since it would not be fair for God to eternally condemn anyone without first giving them a fair shot to get to know him, it would only be logical to conclude this parable is for those who are being judged [evaluated] now (1 Pet 4:17) and knew what was required of them but failed or refused to perform. In short, chp 25 reminds Christians not to get complacent while waiting. If they do, their one and only shot at salvation is forfeited and eternal condemnation awaits (Mat 25:41,46). This warning against a "lackadaisical" christian attitude is consistent throughout the three parables in Mat 25.

 

[punkdbass]

Were actually getting some pretty interesting posts in this thread now, thanks guys!

Yes, it does. Compassion, after all, is the only "true" religion.

Also, I'd like you to check out Luke 12:35-48, in which he says that the people who are unaware of the truth (whatever that truth may be) and transgress are punished much less than the people who are aware and still transgress.
This is simplified in John 9:40-41, when he tells the Pharisees that they'd be innocent if they were "blind" but, because they "see", they are guilty.

So, in summation, the only ones who are truly "guilty" are those who know that something is wrong and still partake in it.

Of course, these verses are never, ever, ever quoted by televangelists or anyone like that. They just, kind of, sit there, in the Gospels, and stagnate, unused.

Interesting. Thanks for these verses Bob, these are some really good points that make a lot of sense to me.

Good points, Punkdbass. I read Matthew the same way. In fact, I think there are all kinds of hints all throughout Matthew that suggest that anyone, regardless of what they call themselves, is eligible for Heaven/redemption/salvation--whatever you want to call it. Just as there are hints that what someone calls themselves may not help them:

[Matthew 15:7-9
New International Version (NIV)
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules. ’[a] ”

Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Good points Quagmire, I definitely agree.

1. The context of these parables actually begins when the disciples asked Christ, privately, to shed some light on His return (Mat 24:3). If you examine the narrative in Mat 24 carefully, you'll notice Christ addressed them in the second person plural (you, yours). This indicates the narrative applied to events and things His disciples should watch for. In chapter 25, Christ continues the narrative with a series of parables to demonstrate what His servants [disciples] should and should not be doing while awaiting His return.

Ah yes, I see that the bulk of your argument to refute mine, as well as Bob and Quagmires interpretation's of these verses is that you think they were addressed only to Jesus's disciples, and referred specifically only to them. I would say however, that during the time these stories are thought to have happened, Jesus was preaching his message to the "lost sheep" of Israel. Most of which he taught his disciples, he taught them with the purpose that they would go out and teach the non-Christians. So although Jesus told the parables by addressing his disciples, it seems very logical to me that his disciples, and probably Jesus himself would address non-Christians as well with these same exact parables on their "missions." Seeing as how these parables seem to be pretty universal in nature as well as the lessons they teach, I simply see very little reason to attribute them solely to the disciples of Jesus and not to non-Christians.

IMO it is not a stretch whatsoever to say that Matthew 25:31-46 means that when a non-Christian does an act of compassion to his fellow man, he is in effect showing that same compassion to Jesus. And like I said, considering at the time all of these stories were being preached to the lost sheep of Israel, I just don't see why their lessons and values can't apply to them as well.

 

[waitasec]

Christ gave many parables. Some were directed to the general public others were directed to His disciples. This one was for his disciples. He illustrates how His servants ---(Christians) must not remain stagnant and use the talents given for the advancement of God's work. Those who do nothing, will forfeit their opportunity to attain eternal life and have to be eliminated in a very real lake of fire. Those who use them--even in the smallest capacity---will ultimately be given eternal life along with the privilege to rule real earthly cities (Rev 5:10), as evidenced by the parallel account in Luk 19:12-26.

This parable is also directed to His disciples. This is evidenced by the fact the disobedient disciples also refer to Christ as "Lord" (Mat 25:44)--something a non-christian would not claim. Christ's true disciples are being evaluated or judged by the things they do in this life (1 Pet 4:17). Their reward or sentence will be carried out when Christ returns.

his disciples were not his servants according to john's gospel...they were his friends.

 

[james2ko]

his disciples were not his servants according to john's gospel...they were his friends.

Joh 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.​

He would no longer call them servants. A few verses later He still considered them so:

Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.​

 

[waitasec]

Joh 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.​

He would no longer call them servants. A few verses later He still considered them so:

Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.​

i guess he was a bit confused...

 

[e.r.m.]

Just curious to hear everyone's interpretations of the last 2 stories found in Matthew 25.

-Matthew 25:14-30 features a parable in which a King gives his first slave 5 talents(type of money), the second he gives 2 talents, and the third he gives one. The first slave invests his talents and earns 5 more, the second slave invests his talents and earns 2 more, and the last slave burries his talent in the ground and does nothing with it. The first 2 slaves go to heaven, and the last slave goes to hell. My interpretation of this parable is that God gives every one of us different levels of skills, talents, wisdom, understanding, etc, and that all that matters is we sincerely try to use these things for good. It doesnt matter if we do more good(earn 5 talents) than others(only earn 2), all that matters is that we sincerely tried to use what we were given in life for good. And that those who refuse to try and use these things for good(slave who burried his 1 talent), are the one's who are denied access to heaven.

-Matthew 25:31-46 features a story about the day of judgment where Jesus divides those going to hell and those going to heaven. He says to those who are heaven-bound: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.. And the righteous respond, "‘Lord when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? ...etc. and Jesus says: ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

My interpretation of this story is that even non-Christians(who dont know Jesus) who feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick, etc can go to heaven. Both of these stories found in Matthew 25, suggest to me that salvation can be achieved through works of compassion. Just curious to see how you guys interpret these 2 stores, please share Perhaps my interpretations are way off the boat or heavily reflect my Jewish bias.. but I really enjoyed reading the gospel of Matthew and found it interesting that so little of the dogma behind Jesus's sacrifice and blood atonement was present in the gospel of Matthew -which is supposed to accurately depict Jesus's life and teachings.

No, it's all the above, not multiple choice. Same stance as I take with those who say that believing in Jesus is all that's necessary for salvation. The stories you quoted do not say their exclusive. The Bible authors make crystally clear that belief in Jesus, repentance, confessing with one's mouth Jesus as Lord, and baptism in Jesus's name, are ALSO part of getting saved. Often, they speak of each component in isolation, but that doesn't mean they exclude other requirements. If they said, this is all you have to do, then that would be a different story.
I agree, Matthew is a great book.
Not to conflict with you, Matthew has many treasures. I saw a lot of what Jesus did in order to prepare people's hearts and draw them closer to God before he ultimately died for them. I think Matthew 25 was part of that.

 

[e.r.m.]

Also, I'd like you to check out Luke 12:35-48, in which he says that the people who are unaware of the truth (whatever that truth may be) and transgress are punished much less than the people who are aware and still transgress.
This is simplified in John 9:40-41, when he tells the Pharisees that they'd be innocent if they were "blind" but, because they "see", they are guilty.

So, in summation, the only ones who are truly "guilty" are those who know that something is wrong and still partake in it.

Of course, these verses are never, ever, ever quoted by televangelists or anyone like that. They just, kind of, sit there, in the Gospels, and stagnate, unused.

I agree.

 

[james2ko]

Ah yes, I see that the bulk of your argument to refute mine, as well as Bob and Quagmires interpretation's of these verses is that you think they were addressed only to Jesus's disciples, and referred specifically only to them. I would say however, that during the time these stories are thought to have happened, Jesus was preaching his message to the "lost sheep" of Israel. Most of which he taught his disciples, he taught them with the purpose that they would go out and teach the non-Christians.

1. Christ commanded His disciples to go out and teach all He taught to other disciples--not the general public:

Mat 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
​

So although Jesus told the parables by addressing his disciples, it seems very logical to me that his disciples, and probably Jesus himself would address non-Christians as well with these same exact parables on their "missions." Seeing as how these parables seem to be pretty universal in nature as well as the lessons they teach, I simply see very little reason to attribute them solely to the disciples of Jesus and not to non-Christians.

2. Christ disagrees:

Mat 13:10-11 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" 11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
​

IMO it is not a stretch whatsoever to say that Matthew 25:31-46 means that when a non-Christian does an act of compassion to his fellow man, he is in effect showing that same compassion to Jesus. And like I said, considering at the time all of these stories were being preached to the lost sheep of Israel, I just don't see why their lessons and values can't apply to them as well.

3. Good deeds are certainly noble and have many benefits to both Christians and non-christians. Scripture indicates Christians are being judged for their good deeds and conduct of this life. Non-christians will be physically resurrected and evaluated later. In the scope of God's plan for humanity, I believe the main benefit for non-christians who perform these works today is that they will have a much easier time accepting Christ's way of life, during their evaluation period, than those who do not.

 

[james2ko]

i guess he was a bit confused...

Perhaps you are.