The Gospel of Luke, a Case Study.

I am afraid my last posts have been very theoretical, and many a reader could have been lost. So I thought it would be of interest to rather proceed with a case study. In order not to reveal more than necessary, I will limit myself to a case that has already been made public in a Book (that failed to gather attention though). Let's read the introductory chapter:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

This introduction by Luke is a typical illustration of "hiding in plain sight". The author is saying something that only a wise student, one who studies with care can decipher, and most others are likely to overlook. We shall together attempt to read the real message Luke is trying to convey.

First we need to ask some questions:

- Why does Luke write an additional gospel, though he knows and acknowledges there are already hundreds in circulation? Clearly Luke wants to correct something and make sure the truth is not lost.

-Who is Luke writing to? Most writers of the scriptures usually wrote to churches and faithfuls. The other instances where a letter sent to a single individual (Philemon, Titus and Timothy) had to do with personal exhortations and advice or issues to be addressed. Maybe it would be a good start to examine to whom the Luke letter is addressed and why.

Most excellent indicate a man of nobility, possibly a King. Interestingly, in the Book of Acts, Luke does not revere him anymore and calls him "Theophilus". Did he lose his kingship? Surely not. Who can this Theophilus be. From Etymology, Theo = God but also Theory. Philo = love.

LoJ:


It is the glory of God to conceal (hide) a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2

cheers.

And, the Lord does nothing until he has revealed it to His servants. Amos 3:7

2 Corinthians 4:3-12 King James Version (KJV)

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

PS 25:14
[/]The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.[/b]

If you feel like God is hiding something from you, maybe is becos you an outsider.

He said he knows his own and he is known by them.

Shepherd00:

And, the Lord does nothing until he has revealed it to His servants. Amos 3:7

2 Corinthians 4:3-12 King James Version (KJV)

[b]3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

At least you acknowledge that divine things are hidden to some, and that was exactly my point. Moreover, I never claimed to be anyone's servant or otherwise.

Again, when something is well hidden, people are not aware of it, aside those who have managed to dilligently seek it and find it. When one don't know something is hidden, it could be because one has not found it yet.

Greetings

History fails to record any King Theophilus who was a disciple of Christ or a Christian. Again the fact that in the book of Acts l, Luke calls him merely by his first name, makes it doubtful it is really a King. Perhaps it is not even a historical figure at all.

The closer we can get to a Theophilus that has anything to do with Christianity is Philo of Alexandria. Funny, he has already been mentioned here by Sarassin and lately by Pastoraio.

Philo Judaeus of Alexandria was no king though. Still he was a dignitary and a great thinker. Problem is, it is highly doubtful that he was a disciple of the Christian thought. He even fails to speak about any Jesus in his records of history, meanwhile both belonged to the same period and were contemporaries.

There is another possibility though. It could be that Philo did not learn directly from Christians, but that he rather learned from a tradition that preceded the Christian way and in turn influenced the Christian thought.

This later possibility has more substance. In a recent post Pastoraio has rightly demonstrated that Christian Thought borrowed from an earlier tradition through Philo Judaeus among others.

The very concept of the Logos intermediary
between the divine and this world as per the gospel of John has been borrowed from Philo. To quote Pastoraio would be very lengthy but seekers can read for themselves the following thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/184102/logos#2950048

Double.

LoJ:

At least you acknowledge that divine things are hidden to some, and that was exactly my point. Moreover, I never claimed to be anyone's servant or otherwise.

Again, when something is well hidden, people are not aware of it, aside those who have managed to dilligently seek it and find it. When one don't know something is hidden, it could be because one has not found it yet.

Greetings

Funny enough those who finds what Jesus hid were and are the poor and lowly, not the seemingly wise and elite.

At this point it appears Luke wants the careful reader to pay attention to a Theophilus, probably the theologian Philo Judaeus.

We have established that Philo had enormous influence over the christian thought. Digging a little further we find what could be the Key Luke is pointing to.

Indeed Philo says in his renowned Essay "every good person is free"

- Then one, indeed, takes up the holy[b] volume and reads from it[/b], and another of the men of the greatest experience comes forward and explains what is not very intelligible, for a great many precepts are delivered in enigmatical modes of expression, and allegorically, as the old fashion was; -

Theo(logian) Philo is saying that holy scripture is delivered with enigmas that have to be solved before the scripture is understood.

But there is more to it.

Philo Judaeus is also the one who devised a procedure to the unlocking of the hidden Deeper meanings of esoteric scripture. Could this be the missing key?

The Philo's proposed procedure is as simple as it is effective. Without the complexities of Gematria and numerology it is an effective method to unravel the mysteries hidden in some esoteric Texts.

The procedure in summary consist in

- identifying the encryption key of the desired text.

-identifying striking indicators at specific points in the said spiritual text.

These indicators are usually in the form of an obvious omission, a clear parallel, a clear deformation, an obvious mistake, a non sensical punctuation, the intervention of a majestic figure who could not possibly etc.

- unveiling the hidden message.

In other words what Luke is saying is:

Many people are writing their own gospel which is far from the real truth. I have reasons to believe there is an effort to change the original message. If I write about it openly my book will be censored. I have hidden the real message of Jesus in this book though in enigmas. Turn to the procedure of theologian Philo Judaeus for assistance in unveiling the message.

I believe we are now equipped to study the real message of Luke.

We have now established the esoteric interpretation of Luke's introduction. He wants us to use the methodology of Philo to uncover the hidden deeper message from his book. Let's then proceed with a few chapter and see if anything of interest comes out.

The next section of the chapter (Luke 1:5-25) deals with the birth of John the Baptist. Is it possible to read an esoteric meaning to that part using Philo's methodology?

After reading the chapter the first thing that comes to the mind of anyone with average Bible knowledge is that, the story of John's birth is almost identical to that of Samson in Judges 13: 5-25. Is it possible that the same story happened twice in an almost identical manner? Or is there more to it than meets the eyes.

Obviously Luke just copied the story with the purpose of conveying a specific message. According to Philo's principles the best thing to do is to compare both texts and find the esoteric indicators.

LoJ:

Is it possible that the same story happened twice in an almost identical manner? Or is there more to it than meets the eyes.

Amazingly, you'd find similar identifying in Cain and Abel, Abraham and Lot, and in Jacob and Esau, to name a few. I'm beginning to think it's teaching by repetition.

Like previously indicated both stories save the names of the protagonists, are almost identical to the dot. Still, a careful comparison of both shows slight differences. And indeed, the devil is in the details. Let's list the differences:

- In Samson's case it is indicated that the child is a Nazarite.

- In Luke, the angel reveals his name to be Gabriel.

- In Luke, the father becomes mute, and can't talk.

These are the three slight differences. Except these, both stories could easily pass one for the other. Our job is now to connect to dots and find the reason why Luke copied the entire story making only very minor alterations.

Let's start with the first point.

In both stories the child is forbidden to drink spirits and cut his hairs. These were the distinctive habits of a particular early jewish sect called the nazarites (number 6). These were people who dedicated themselves to the service of God. With time the practice evolved and led to the esoteric group called the Essenes.

Interestingly, Nazarite and Nazarene are very similar (moreso in Hebrew). The authors of the other gospels made it clear that Jesus was called a Nazarene because he grew up in Nazareth, a small village in Israël. This however clearly opposes every messianic prophecy of the Torah. The old testament makes it very clear that the Messiah must be from Bethlehem.

To overcome this blatant contradiction, Matthew twists the storyline. Jesus is from bethelehem but to run away from Herod he had to run to Nazareth. In the process Matthew creates a prophecy that in reality exists nowhere in the Torah:

“He went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.” Matthew 2:23

Obviously something fishy is going on.

Hahahahahahaha haha. cultic folk write about your master and leave Jesus alone.
Satan bows to Jesus.

Shepherd00:
Hahahahahahaha haha. cultic folk write about your master and leave Jesus alone.

Satan bows to Jesus.

Have you ever met Jesus in person?

Double post.

Luke seems to have a divergent opinion. In Acts 24:5 Luke the "leader of the Nazarene sect". According to him, Nazarene refered to a sect, a group of people with an established spiritual practice, not just a mere place. Would it make sense to call the disciples Nazarenes, although none of them except Jesus allegedly came from the village? Why would Matthew fake a prophecy that exists nowhere in the Torah, not even the extended Tanakh just to give another meaning to this Nazarene word?

Could it be that someone wanted to hide the fact that Jesus actually belonged to the Essenes? Maybe the next difference will give us more clue about that.

Indeed the second difference between Luke's account and Samson's story is the name of the angel. In Samson's case, the angel refused to disclose his name, while Luke gives him the name Gabriel.

This should ring a bell because there is only one other Bible passage where Gabriel is mentioned: in the story of Daniel.

Who is Daniel? Daniel is that very consecrated young man who refused to eat the King's food nor drink wine... Just like a typical Nazarite.

Once again Luke is sending us to the Nazarene /Nazarite /essenic tradition.

LoJ:
Luke seems to have a divergent opinion. In Acts 24:5 Luke the "leader of the Nazarene sect". According to him, Nazarene refered to a sect, a group of people with an established spiritual practice, not just a mere place. Would it make sense to call the disciples Nazarenes, although none of them except Jesus allegedly came from the village? Why would Matthew fake a prophecy that exists nowhere in the Torah, not even the extended Tanakh just to give another meaning to this Nazarene word?

Could it be that someone wanted to hide the fact that Jesus actually belonged to the Essenes? Maybe the next difference will give us more clue about that.

Indeed the second difference between Luke's account and Samson's story is the name of the angel. In Samson's case, the angel refused to disclose his name, while Luke gives him the name Gabriel.

This should ring a bell because there is only one other Bible passage where Gabriel is mentioned: in the story of Daniel.

Who is Daniel? Daniel is that very consecrated young man who refused to eat the King's food nor drink wine... Just like a typical Nazarite.

Once again Luke is sending us to the Nazarene /Nazarite /essenic tradition.

most school of thought concerning the myth and truth around Jesus are starting to accept he may have belong to an older essenic cult that predates his teaching but was moulded around the Essene cult teachings. there are many instances present even in the New Testament that shows Jesus was part of the cult. The lost years of Jesus might not be lost after all. He may have spent sometime in presence of this cult, learning and shaping his belief system and what will now become his teaching.

Read Jesus and the Essene by Dolores cannon.

hayoholla:




most school of thought concerning the myth and truth around Jesus are starting to accept he may have belong to an older essenic cult that predates his teaching but was moulded around the Essene cult teachings. there are many instances present even in the New Testament that shows Jesus was part of the cult. The lost years of Jesus might not be lost after all. He may have spent sometime in presence of this cult, learning and shaping his belief system and what will now become his teaching.

Read Jesus and the Essene by Dolores cannon.

I agree. Jesus was clearly of essenic background and so was John. With time some authorities have tried to suppress this information. This is what I am trying to demonstrate here with this case study.

But there is more to this case study. It appears a highly revered figure of early Christianity has hijacked the sect and given the direction that led to the present Christianity, which is different from the original teaching of Yeshua. Someone Like a Trojan horse. Thanks to the Nag hamadi and the Qumran, the truth can be uncovered.

LoJ:
Every significant religion follows the same cycle.

- discovery of a deep truth by a spiritual seeker that leads him to some level of gnosis / union with divinity /enlightenment

- the enlightened shared his perception of truth with people around him

- The people do understand the truth each according to their level. Some do not understand at all. Some even oppose it.

-As opposition increase, the number of adherent also increase. After a certain threshold the new cult becomes mainstream and is tolerated, sometimes accepted by majority.

- The difference of level of understanding creates a plurality of interpretation. This creates a need for established theoretical and theological doctrine.


- rulers and aspiring rulers find in doctrine an opportunity to further their own agenda and political aim.

- the original founder is made into a God or a unique / usually the only or last mouthpiece of God. This ensures that the people will keep united under his banner despite the divergences.

The original truth that was unearthed is at that point made banal and set aside for other more convenient doctrines.

as you rightly pointed, religion starts when someone supposedly discovers a Truth. Usually in a society devoid of this Truth. This Truth is so agreeable and connects with the society where it is now upheld. It becomes a standard for their intellectual evolution and hence seems to be a divine truth. Because of this truth or SET of TRUTHS the initiator is seen to be in connection with higher forces or a custodian of divinity.
This is possible because such high priests are self centered and they actually exhibit pious behavious in order to be highly regarded.
Truth is all scientist and innovators we have had in history could all have started their own religion playing on the ignorance of the society, but because they demystify what they do, they try to help others understand what their work is and do not attribute it to anything mysterious or divine. Then we call it science and philosophy. Our herbalists in africa and the indian native doctors /witchdoctors were not so. They discover herbs and use it to cure people and because of that they claim to be in connection with higher forces. They go into trances taking psychoactive herbs and claim it is spiritual.
History has had great philosophers who took a school approach to their teachings. Mostly the great greek philosophers. The socrates and aristotles. They created what we know today as academies.

Not so for some asian philosophers and african philosophers.

African philosophers such as obatala used his depth of thinking to advance the yoruba philosophy and intellect but he became a god for this.

It is a battle between honesty and dishonesty.
Religion is on the side of dishonesty, philosophy and science is based on honesty and that is why everyone is carried alond and made equal.

Religion is based on division and selfishness. Where a set of people are told they are special and chosen and they base this on little truths that they hold as their foundation but in a bid to proof they are so special, they end up throwing in a lot of lies and exaggerations, lots of legends and stories. They try as much to out do and out class existing religions and cults they are aware of. They still ideas from each other and modify to their own taste.

Only thinkers can understand this. Not religious kids

LoJ:

I agree. Jesus was clearly of essenic background and so was John. With time some authorities have tried to suppress this information. This is what I am trying to demonstrate here with this case study.

But there is more to this case study. It appears a highly revered figure of early Christianity has hijacked the sect and given the direction that led to the present Christianity, which is different from the original teaching of Yeshua. Someone Like a Trojan horse. Thanks to the Nag hamadi and the Qumran, the truth can be uncovered.

Qumran was the stronghold of the Essenes before it was captured and controlled by the romans. I agree with your assertion that a high ranking Roman general might have hijacked their teaching and formed what to be known as Christianity, I suspect the man named Paul, the name might be a pen name of the man behind the author of major books of the New Testament. just a wild guess, but one thing I know for sure is, Paul was not a real figure as commonly depicted sha

hayoholla:




Qumran was the stronghold of the Essenes before it was captured and controlled by the romans. I agree with your assertion that a high ranking Roman general might have hijacked their teaching and formed what to be known as Christianity, I suspect the man named Paul, the name might be a pen name of the man behind the author of major books of the New Testament. just a wild guess, but one thing I know for sure is, Paul was not a real figure as commonly depicted sha

I will be back on this soon. Interesting points made.

Till now we have established that Luke directs us to the essenic / nazarite tradition via Samson and Daniel. There is more to this.

In her praises the mother of John copied the words of the Mother of Samuel when she became pregnant (see 1 Sam 2:1-10). Luke thus compares the birth of John to that of Samuel. And what is special about Samuel?

1Samuel 1:11: "She made this vow: `O Lord of hosts, if only you will…give to your servant a male child, then I will set him before you as a Nazarite until the day of his death. He shall drink neither wine nor intoxicants, and no razor shall touch his head.'"

Once again a Nazarite.

So in the first chapter of Luke, 3 Nazarites are referenced: Samson, Daniel und Samuel. Is it a coincidence? Certainly not. Luke is trying to say that Jesus was from an essenic tradition. But why Luke does not tell this openly? Why the use of Codes? Maybe we can begin to get the answer when we examine the last difference highlighted before.

Indeed the last difference between both stories was the fact the John's father could not talk after the encounter. What is Luke is trying to tell us? Is it possible that Luke wants to let us know that he can't state this openly because there is censorship?

Using Theo(login) Philo's methodology we realize that Luke is saying that:

Jesus and early Christians belong to a tradition, a sect, that goes back to the Nazarites. But Luke can't state this openly because there are conscious efforts to suppress the true teaching of Jesus and give it a politically correct direction.

The question would be, who is he that Luke fears so much to the point of hiding his message?

LoJ:

Have you ever met Jesus in person?

Does Spirits meet flesh and blood in person?

You said you were a Pastor before you saw the light and left Jesus. Did you ever see him in person before you believed and became a Pastor?

Shepherd00:

Does Spirits meet flesh and blood in person?

You said you were a Pastor before you saw the light and left Jesus. Did you ever see him in person before you believed and became a Pastor?

You are not answering the question. I take it you never met him. So your faith is based on hearsay. All right then

Shepherd00:
You said you were a Pastor before you saw the light and left Jesus. Did you ever see him in person before you believed and became a Pastor?

No I never met him before becoming a pastor, which is why I became one in the first place. Had I met him, I would have known it is useless to be a pastor. Now I have met him a couple of times.

I do consider becoming a pastor again though. There is much money to be made being a jelly haired sweet speaking deceiving prophet.

LoJ:

No I never met him before becoming a pastor, which is why I became one in the first place

You never met Jesus in the flesh that is why you became a Pastor? So, where did your conviction of Him being the Lord and Savior came from?

LoJ:

Had I met him, I would have known it is useless to be a pastor.

What would you have become if you had met Him in Person?

LoJ:

Now I have met him a couple of times.

Oh, now that you have become a sorcerer you have met Jesus in Person a couple of times? Can I see a picture of him please? Don't tell me you'd meet Jesus of Nazareth in Person and you forget to take some pics.

LoJ post=76817240
I do consider becoming a pastor again though[/quote:

Well, the world is booming with pastors like you now- -a-days. "Mystical Christians" as you rightly called them.

[quote author=LoJ post=76817240
There is much money to be made being a jelly haired sweet speaking deceiving prophet.

I'm glad you know that those who don't really know Him but claim they do are deceivers, who by the way, know that they'll stand before the very Jesus to answer for their activities. Don't believe it, it's okay.

LoJ:

You are not answering the question. I take it you never met him. So your faith is based on hearsay. All right then

You mean hear say as in people telling me they met Him in person?

I have had several Spiritual encounters with Him that I know beyond every reasonable doubt that that was Jesus. In person, tho, flesh and blood, standing and talking to me with a human voice, no, I have not met Him. But anytime I get confused about a thing and I need direction, I ask Him to point me through, He does it.
He even did 2 days ago.

Shepherd00:

You never met Jesus in the flesh that is why you became a Pastor? So, where did your conviction of Him being the Lord and Savior came from?

The same way most Christian get their own alleged conviction. Somebody brainwashed me into going to his church and memorizing Bible verses. which I was very good at.

The day of graduation from theology school, I was required to quote 75 Bible verses by heart without any interruption. I quoted 100.

Shepherd00:
What would you have become if you had met Him in Person?

I would habe become someone in the direction to what I am now.

Shepherd00:
Oh, now that you have become a sorcerer you have met Jesus in Person a couple of times?

Yes. I mean by Jesus the egregore of Christianity. Christ in himself is more of an internal godly state of consciousness.

You seem to believe that a person is limited to physical body. A thesis that even the Bible disagrees with.

Shepherd00:
I'm glad you know that those who don't really know Him but claim they do are deceivers, who by the way, know that they'll stand before the very Jesus to answer for their activities. Don't believe it, it's okay

Yes, and going by that standard, anybidy that opens an assembly, a church building or Organisation, clearly does not know him. Jesus did not build any church, nor encouraged people to.

Even a litteral understanding of the Bible is enough to know that Jesus taught a way of life, a inner Christianity and not a religion.

Shepherd00:

You mean hear say as in people telling me they met Him in person?

I have had several Spiritual encounters with Him that I know beyond every reasonable doubt that that was Jesus. In person, tho, flesh and blood, standing and talking to me with a human voice, no, I have not met Him. But anytime I get confused about a thing and I need direction, I ask Him to point me through, He does it.
He even did 2 days ago.

Very nice. Keep following him then sincerely, and you will see the truth in what I am saying at the appropriate time. When you are ready.

LoJ:

Have you ever met Jesus in person?

I think its the major problem people have. They fear what they do not know but still won't research.

LoJ:

Very nice. Keep following him then sincerely, and you will see the truth in what I am saying at the appropriate time. When you are ready.

I will eventually see the truth is Mystical Christianity?