Ever since my discovery that St. Luke and St. Mark (2 of the 4 writers of the synoptic gospels) never even knew Jesus, I have been following a VERY disturbing "thread" of consciousness. When I read the accounts on various "Trad Catholic" websites on today's feast of "Our Lady of the Snow", I was intrigued by reading that the icon of Our Lady and the child Jesus, that is displayed in the basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome, was supposedly "painted by physician, St. Luke, on the table top of the Last Supper, that was supplied by the Virgin Mary". This was simply a "bridge too far" for me. That I remember, Our Lady never even mentioned St. Luke in the detailed account of the lives of both she and her Son, much less taking the table top from the table in the Upper Room wherein Jesus instructed His Apostles in how to offer His Sacrifice after His Crucifixion in order that she could instruct an "apostle" whom Jesus NEVER met to paint a picture of she and her Son as a child??? And then we are supposed to believe that this painting simply miraculously showed up 300 yrs later???

In addition, literally EVERY internet search completed by A.I. states how very close the Blessed Virgin was with St. Luke. This information simply does NOT SQUARE with everything else I read in Mary's accounts. According to A.I. results, there is absolutely NO discrepancies between St.Luke's account and that of either Matthew or John. This is simply NOT TRUE. Unfortunately, I could see people readily accepting this info that immediately pops up as TRUTH, as it is something they DESIRE to believe & chose NOT to pursue it further. Unless we speak out about this now, how will anyone in the future KNOW that this information, given to them as "Truth", is nothing but a LIE?

In his Book of Gospels, and his Book of Acts, St. Luke refers several times to someone he addresses as "most excellent Theophilus". A further search reveals this to most likely be a man named Theophilus, son of Ananus, who was indeed a Jewish high priest in the Second Temple period, specifically from 37 to 41 CE. He is also known as Theophilus ben Ananus. Historical records, including those by Josephus, confirm his position as high priest. This Theophilus is believed to be the same Theophilus addressed in the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts.

In fact, Theophilus was the son of Annas, the high priest mentioned in the the arrest and trial of Jesus, and the brother-in-law of Caiaphas, another high priest who was also implicated in the crucifixion of Jesus. This family held considerable power and influence in Jewish society at the time.
"Theophilus ben Ananus" was the physician Luke's BENEFACTOR and someone who hired Luke to write those books that were later accepted as sacred scripture. "Some scholars believe Luke's writings were intended for Theophilus, who was either a high-ranking official, a wealthy benefactor, or even St. Paul's original defense attorney in Rome".

This is SO very upsetting to me, but would explain many of the definite discrepancies not only in the gospels of sacred scripture, but also in the account given by Our Blessed Mother to Sr. Mary of Agreda.

An example of this was Our Lady's account of her Annunciation and the birth of Jesus. In the MCoG, Our Lady was VERY SPECIFIC to Sr. Mary regarding TIME FRAMES (eg days, months, and years). According to Our Lady, the annunciation took place on March 25, 5199 (years after creation of Adam), with the birth of Jesus on Dec 25, 5199 and the Crucifixion taking place on Friday, March 25, 5233. She is VERY specific about these dates. She also recounts the birth of Jesus taking place in a cave in the mountains. She gives explicit details about this, as does Bl Anne Catherine Emmerich in her mystical revelations. This is totally contrary to the account we are given by St. Luke who claims that Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Jerusalem for the "census" which took place during the "feast of the tabernacles" in mid-October. St. Luke mentions that Jesus was born in a stable as there "was no room in the inns" due to the jewish feast, and that those in attendance were "shepherds" tending their flocks. As shepherds would not be herding sheep in late December, this also gave credibility to his claim of a mid-October birth. To justify the date of Dec 25 as the birth day of Christ, we were told that the authentic birthday of mid-October was later changed in an attempt to distract pagans from their celebration of the pagan Winter Solstice festivities. This is even printed off in Catholic history books, so it MUST be TRUE right?

Matthew records the magi, who are not in Luke, but Luke includes the shepherds, who are absent from Matthew. Matthew also doesn't mention that Mary and Joseph were in Nazareth before being in Bethlehem. Even more significantly, Luke has no record of the slaughter of the children in Bethlehem or of the flight to Egypt which are pretty SIGNIFICANT to the gospel narrative.

In addition, Luke's genealogy of Jesus ancestry is different from Matthew's genealogy, as it traces Jesus's lineage through Nathan (David's son) rather than Solomon. It begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, while Matthew's begins with Abraham and goes forward to Jesus. Luke's methodology is definitely more aligned with the jewish customs at the time.

Solomon's Book of Ecclesiastes 1:9 states, "That which has been is what will be, and that which is done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun." WHY is it that we somehow believe that what we see happening today insofar as corruption & deceit, was not taking place to the same extent during the times of Jesus Christ. The spirit of iniquity NEVER SLEEPS.