Hi Bluejay
Since you are an orthodox Christian in a traditional church you will probably not agree with Gnostic readings of the New Testament.
Probably not. But then again I am an esoterist of an orthodox gnosis.
I take it the beatitudes are descriptions of the light-filled life.
As do I.
Since these attributes that are described in the beatitudes are seen among the non-religious as well as among some relgious people, I take it Jesus is describing the light-filled life, and religion has nothing to do with it.
I rather think Jesus was describing religious people - people who seek the light, or Union with the light.
When voicing the beatitudes He does not say 'blessed are you' but 'blessed are they...' - so not the crowd; He then says 'you are the light of the world' as a call to God - He does not say what quality of light they manifest to the world, but again calls them to the Light of God, not their own lights...
Matt. 5:14 says "Ye are the light of the world." I take it Jesus was a religious rebel speaking to religious rebels. Thus, it is the religious rebels who are the light of the world.
That would be very hard to prove as Jesus was absolutely orthodox in his Judaism - and we have no idea of the religious or political stance of the crowd who came to hear Him.
If you read on from that text:
"... So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." By which we assume that the Father is the source of the light of which he speaks, and then: "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
The Law in question is the Law of Israel as delivered to Moses and spoken of by the Prophets.
Nothing in what Jesus said or did contradicts the Sacred Scripture of the Jews - if it did, they would have been able to prosecute Him immediately - so far from being a 'religious rebel' I would say He lived religion, not rebelled against it.
It was not until He described Himself as 'the Son of Man' - and the sanhedrin chose to interpret that in the sense of the Prophet Daniel as referring to God, (as elsewhere in Scripture it refers to man) - that a charge could be brought against Him, of blasphemy, for which He was crucified.
Had He been a religious rebel, he would have been stoned according to the Law, as were blasphemers, adulterers, etc., for which the Jews did not have to seek the permission of the Roman Consul. The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus dead, but they did not want His blood on their hands, hence the trumped-up charges and the threat of inciting riot against the Romans if Pilate refused to do so.
So that's why I tend to disagree with gnostic readings, I find them too often too selective in what they accept and what they reject ... but that's just my view.
Thomas
