Uncovering the Lucan Allegory

[Drich]

Nope. Just a standard literal interpretation of what was going on.

Then at that point it ceases to be a "Bible study."

It's not any more 'real' than mine was.

your map was not to scale nor did it include any topography.

This one is simply slanted so that you can draw a horizontal line between Galilee and Gerasa. This doesn't make it opposite Galilee because Gerasa isn't based on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, as Luke makes it out to be:

It was based on a google maps satelite image that gave a natural perspective.

Then they arrived at the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. As he stepped out on land, a man of the city who had demons met him.

This refers to a Region "The Land of Gerasenes" I does not say "with in the city walls of Gerasenes" which is what the dot on either map repersents. For Gerasenes was the captiol of persia and had boarders that expanded beyond the city walls.

Nothing about walking x miles to Gerasa.

6 miles from the sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umm_Qais there is a good pic of the ruins on a hill looking down to the sea that gives a great understanding of how the two are related.

They simply got out of the boat at 'Gerasa' and they found the man. This is all perfectly possible if it was Capernaum because Capernaum is on the shore of the Sea of Galilee.

this guy slept in tombs. even in gentile cities the tombs were found outside the city walls in that time. And if the people considered this man to have a 'demon' (whether he did or not) he would have been forced to live out of the city walls.

When the reference has 3 numbers (x:y:z) I'm pretty sure it means book x, chapter y, paragraph/verse z. Sorry, I should have clarified.

Book three of Josepheus is Flavius Josephus Against Apion, not the war of the Jews. that is book two. If you look at how the books are subdivided you have book chapter and phragraph. There arn't any verses in the unmolested translation of the Works of Josepheus.

That is why I ask that yoou provide your version, maybe it was a study based work or a commentary based work. that subdivided the work further than what I was referencing.

Wow, you're absolutely right. I've let my guard down on this one.. I honestly thought this Gospel was somewhat equivalent to the Gospel of Thomas in that it was written around those times, but clearly Wikipedia shows me this Gospel is an outlier. Thanks, you've reminded me to always do the extra research and never take stuff at face value.

This doesn't mean there's nothing to be looked at here. Luke still talks about this 'Legion' thing. Maybe he should have named it something else OR.... perhaps that was his intention? To link his 'event' to the massacre fresh in people's minds.

Or perhaps there is a demon or a collection of them that goes by that name. Which luke would have been bound to record.

There's no need to 'smash' things together. Put them all side by side and the parallels are obvious; pigs/Jews drowning, 'Legion' i.e. Romans being the cause...

Again unless you smash them together, indivisually these events are unrelated. It is only when a compareson is forced does any of this work together.

Yes, the Gospel of Barnabas was written after for sure, but Josephus' War came before.

perhaps before barnabus, but it is a disputed matter if it came before the works of luke.

The only thing saying that it must have been before 70 A.D. is that none of the Gospels say the prophecy of the temple was fulfilled. This cuts both ways for us and therefore doesn't become very useful. Your view in a nutshell: Jesus was divine, this prophecy came to be. My view in a nutshell: allegories that are alluding to recent events that happened i.e. the destruction of the temple.

Josephus still stands.

Not if luke was written before the war. which if you simply follow what was written in the two books. The book of acts ends with the beginning of Paul's ministry in rome (about 3 years before his death) which puts the completeion of the book of Acts around 64 AD well before the recorded works of Josephus (75AD) We know the Book of Luke was completed well before the book of Acts because we know Luke was a Servant of Theolopus (personal physician) when He wrote the book of Luke. At the time the book of Acts was written He had dedicated his life to the ministry as a deciple of the apstole Paul. Something he could not do if he were still 'owned' by theolopus.

Which puts the completion of both of lukes works before the death of Paul. which was before any of the works of Josephus.

[FallentoReason]

This refers to a Region "The Land of Gerasenes" I does not say "with in the city walls of Gerasenes" which is what the dot on either map repersents. For Gerasenes was the captiol of persia and had boarders that expanded beyond the city walls.

Ah yes, I see what you're saying. Unfortunately the country's borders didn't end at the shores of the sea. They ended at the Yarmuk River. So it still doesn't make sense for Luke to say they are in the country of the Gerasenes.

---

---

6 miles from the sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umm_Qais there is a good pic of the ruins on a hill looking down to the sea that gives a great understanding of how the two are related.

I saw the picture at the bottom. Umm Qais is situated on the Yarmuk River though where the country ends.

this guy slept in tombs. even in gentile cities the tombs were found outside the city walls in that time. And if the people considered this man to have a 'demon' (whether he did or not) he would have been forced to live out of the city walls.

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with the man himself.

Book three of Josepheus is Flavius Josephus Against Apion, not the war of the Jews. that is book two. If you look at how the books are subdivided you have book chapter and phragraph. There arn't any verses in the unmolested translation of the Works of Josepheus.

That is why I ask that yoou provide your version, maybe it was a study based work or a commentary based work. that subdivided the work further than what I was referencing.

Hmm.. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and believe you genuinely misunderstood the reference again. Book 3 of the Wars of the Jews I meant, not Josephus' third work he ever wrote...

Here's an awesome place to search up all of the ancient writings: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...99.01.0148
I've linked you to Josephus' work but not directly to the page, so that you can get some practice with the referencing style

Or perhaps there is a demon or a collection of them that goes by that name. Which luke would have been bound to record.

I think it takes more faith to believe 'Legion' is genuinely the name of the demon(s) rather than Luke making a connection between Jews killed by Roman legion(s).

Not if luke was written before the war. which if you simply follow what was written in the two books. The book of acts ends with the beginning of Paul's ministry in rome (about 3 years before his death) which puts the completeion of the book of Acts around 64 AD well before the recorded works of Josephus (75AD) We know the Book of Luke was completed well before the book of Acts because we know Luke was a Servant of Theolopus (personal physician) when He wrote the book of Luke. At the time the book of Acts was written He had dedicated his life to the ministry as a deciple of the apstole Paul. Something he could not do if he were still 'owned' by theolopus.

Which puts the completion of both of lukes works before the death of Paul. which was before any of the works of Josephus.

If Luke's account is actually genuine, then care to explain its meaning? Jesus travels all this way to step out of the boat, cast out demons, destroy a huge amount of someone's livestock (a crime in those days? I don't know, but not very nice anyways), caused great fear in the country and got asked to leave. Why?

[Drich]

Ah yes, I see what you're saying. Unfortunately the country's borders didn't end at the shores of the sea. They ended at the Yarmuk River. So it still doesn't make sense for Luke to say they are in the country of the Gerasenes.

---

---

6 miles from the sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umm_Qais there is a good pic of the ruins on a hill looking down to the sea that gives a great understanding of how the two are related.

I saw the picture at the bottom. Umm Qais is situated on the Yarmuk River though where the country ends.

How can you quote wiki to build an arguement against, what the same artical says later on?

READ The WHOLE Artical. The Territory or 'Country of Gerasenes' is not in anyway in any type of dispute here! (Even though their is contraversy over the actual site) But the fact that Gerasenes extended to the sea of Galilee is solid fact. For the very next paragraph (Just Above The Picture I want You To Note) in the very same wiki artical that you have been quoting speaks directly to the description of the Said 'country of Gardens.' Which Extends to the Shores of the sea of Galilee.

Hmm.. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and believe you genuinely misunderstood the reference again. Book 3 of the Wars of the Jews I meant, not Josephus' third work he ever wrote...

Here's an awesome place to search up all of the ancient writings: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...99.01.0148
I've linked you to Josephus' work but not directly to the page, so that you can get some practice with the referencing style

Got it! Now that that is over what does the description of Gerasenes have to do with anything?

I think it takes more faith to believe 'Legion' is genuinely the name of the demon(s) rather than Luke making a connection between Jews killed by Roman legion(s).

How so? All you have are quotes from Josephus describing the land and the fruit bearing trees. The rest of your 'evidence' (The 'works of Barnabus, and your wiki reference) do not support any of your assertions.

If Luke's account is actually genuine, then care to explain its meaning? Jesus travels all this way to step out of the boat, cast out demons, destroy a huge amount of someone's livestock (a crime in those days? I don't know, but not very nice anyways),

Not considered to be by the Jews, as Pigs were deemed 'unclean.'

caused great fear in the country and got asked to leave. Why?

God only knows for sure. Perhaps it is as the end of the chapter indicates. He went there to Help One man from being tormented by a 'leigon' of Demons. Perhaps this man was known beyond the 'Country of Gerasenes' as being stricken with The most powerful collection of Demons ever known. We are told many tried but all failed to cast out these Demons, so besides helping this one man who could not be helped by anyone else. Christ also cemented His power and Authority in the minds of everyone who knew of this man and the efforts to free him from possession.

After all if this Legion was anything like a Roman legion there were possiably 5000 Demons, that Christ dispatched with a single word.

[FallentoReason]

How can you quote wiki to build an arguement against, what the same artical says later on?

READ The WHOLE Artical. The Territory or 'Country of Gerasenes' is not in anyway in any type of dispute here! (Even though their is contraversy over the actual site) But the fact that Gerasenes extended to the sea of Galilee is solid fact. For the very next paragraph (Just Above The Picture I want You To Note) in the very same wiki artical that you have been quoting speaks directly to the description of the Said 'country of Gardens.' Which Extends to the Shores of the sea of Galilee.

I've read that paragraph and I have to agree with it. There's enough evidence for me to accept the territory reached the coast. That map that I linked you to from the wiki page is misleading then because it draws the territory as ending along the Yarmuk River instead of the Sea of Galilee, but nevermind.

Got it! Now that that is over what does the description of Gerasenes have to do with anything?

How so? All you have are quotes from Josephus describing the land and the fruit bearing trees. The rest of your 'evidence' (The 'works of Barnabus, and your wiki reference) do not support any of your assertions.

I also gave the bit where Josephus describes the entire massacre which seems very relevant with 'swines' being made to drown in Luke.

---

But now, when the vessels were gotten ready, Vespasian put upon ship-board as many of his forces as he thought sufficient to be too hard for those that were upon the lake, and set sail after them. Now these which were driven into the lake could neither fly to the land, where all was in their enemies' hand, and in war against them; nor could they fight upon the level by sea, for their ships were small and fitted only for piracy; they were too weak to fight with Vespasian's vessels, and the mariners that were in them were so few, that they were afraid to come near the Romans, who attacked them in great numbers. However, as they sailed round about the vessels, and sometimes as they came near them, they threw stones at the Romans when they were a good way off, or came closer and fought them; yet did they receive the greatest harm themselves in both cases. As for the stones they threw at the Romans, they only made a sound one after another, for they threw them against such as were in their armor, while the Roman darts could reach the Jews themselves; and when they ventured to come near the Romans, they became sufferers themselves before they could do any harm to the ether, and were drowned, they and their ships together. As for those that endeavored to come to an actual fight, the Romans ran many of them through with their long poles. Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands; and indeed they were destroyed after various manners every where, till the rest being put to flight, were forced to get upon the land, while the vessels encompassed them about [on the sea]: but as many of these were repulsed when they were getting ashore, they were killed by the darts upon the lake; and the Romans leaped out of their vessels, and destroyed a great many more upon the land: one might then see the lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies, for not one of them escaped. And a terrible stink, and a very sad sight there was on the following days over that country; for as for the shores, they were full of shipwrecks, and of dead bodies all swelled; and as the dead bodies were inflamed by the sun, and putrefied, they corrupted the air, insomuch that the misery was not only the object of commiseration to the Jews, but to those that hated them, and had been the authors of that misery. This was the upshot of the sea-fight. The number of the slain, including those that were killed in the city before, was six thousand and five hundred.

---

Therefore I still think it takes more faith to believe 'Legion' is genuinely the name of the demon(s) rather than Luke making a connection between Jews killed by Roman legion(s).

Not considered to be by the Jews, as Pigs were deemed 'unclean.'

Ah, then it makes even more sense that Luke would draw parallels between the Jews killed as being swines. That's the best way to promote a new religion to the Romans and such.

God only knows for sure. Perhaps it is as the end of the chapter indicates. He went there to Help One man from being tormented by a 'leigon' of Demons. Perhaps this man was known beyond the 'Country of Gerasenes' as being stricken with The most powerful collection of Demons ever known. We are told many tried but all failed to cast out these Demons, so besides helping this one man who could not be helped by anyone else. Christ also cemented His power and Authority in the minds of everyone who knew of this man and the efforts to free him from possession.

After all if this Legion was anything like a Roman legion there were possiably 5000 Demons, that Christ dispatched with a single word.

Sure. We can speculate Jesus was working miracles which oddly resembled an historical massacre that happened OR we can accept there was nothing supernatural and Luke simply flipped an historical event upside-down for his movement's benefit.

[Drich]

How can you quote wiki to build an arguement against, what the same artical says later on?

READ The WHOLE Artical. The Territory or 'Country of Gerasenes' is not in anyway in any type of dispute here! (Even though their is contraversy over the actual site) But the fact that Gerasenes extended to the sea of Galilee is solid fact. For the very next paragraph (Just Above The Picture I want You To Note) in the very same wiki artical that you have been quoting speaks directly to the description of the Said 'country of Gardens.' Which Extends to the Shores of the sea of Galilee.

I've read that paragraph and I have to agree with it. There's enough evidence for me to accept the territory reached the coast. That map that I linked you to from the wiki page is misleading then because it draws the territory as ending along the Yarmuk River instead of the Sea of Galilee, but nevermind.

Got it! Now that that is over what does the description of Gerasenes have to do with anything?

How so? All you have are quotes from Josephus describing the land and the fruit bearing trees. The rest of your 'evidence' (The 'works of Barnabus, and your wiki reference) do not support any of your assertions.

I also gave the bit where Josephus describes the entire massacre which seems very relevant with 'swines' being made to drown in Luke.

---

But now, when the vessels were gotten ready, Vespasian put upon ship-board as many of his forces as he thought sufficient to be too hard for those that were upon the lake, and set sail after them. Now these which were driven into the lake could neither fly to the land, where all was in their enemies' hand, and in war against them; nor could they fight upon the level by sea, for their ships were small and fitted only for piracy; they were too weak to fight with Vespasian's vessels, and the mariners that were in them were so few, that they were afraid to come near the Romans, who attacked them in great numbers. However, as they sailed round about the vessels, and sometimes as they came near them, they threw stones at the Romans when they were a good way off, or came closer and fought them; yet did they receive the greatest harm themselves in both cases. As for the stones they threw at the Romans, they only made a sound one after another, for they threw them against such as were in their armor, while the Roman darts could reach the Jews themselves; and when they ventured to come near the Romans, they became sufferers themselves before they could do any harm to the ether, and were drowned, they and their ships together. As for those that endeavored to come to an actual fight, the Romans ran many of them through with their long poles. Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands; and indeed they were destroyed after various manners every where, till the rest being put to flight, were forced to get upon the land, while the vessels encompassed them about [on the sea]: but as many of these were repulsed when they were getting ashore, they were killed by the darts upon the lake; and the Romans leaped out of their vessels, and destroyed a great many more upon the land: one might then see the lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies, for not one of them escaped. And a terrible stink, and a very sad sight there was on the following days over that country; for as for the shores, they were full of shipwrecks, and of dead bodies all swelled; and as the dead bodies were inflamed by the sun, and putrefied, they corrupted the air, insomuch that the misery was not only the object of commiseration to the Jews, but to those that hated them, and had been the authors of that misery. This was the upshot of the sea-fight. The number of the slain, including those that were killed in the city before, was six thousand and five hundred.

---

Therefore I still think it takes more faith to believe 'Legion' is genuinely the name of the demon(s) rather than Luke making a connection between Jews killed by Roman legion(s).

Not considered to be by the Jews, as Pigs were deemed 'unclean.'

Ah, then it makes even more sense that Luke would draw parallels between the Jews killed as being swines. That's the best way to promote a new religion to the Romans and such.

God only knows for sure. Perhaps it is as the end of the chapter indicates. He went there to Help One man from being tormented by a 'leigon' of Demons. Perhaps this man was known beyond the 'Country of Gerasenes' as being stricken with The most powerful collection of Demons ever known. We are told many tried but all failed to cast out these Demons, so besides helping this one man who could not be helped by anyone else. Christ also cemented His power and Authority in the minds of everyone who knew of this man and the efforts to free him from possession.

After all if this Legion was anything like a Roman legion there were possiably 5000 Demons, that Christ dispatched with a single word.

Sure. We can speculate Jesus was working miracles which oddly resembled an historical massacre that happened OR we can accept there was nothing supernatural and Luke simply flipped an historical event upside-down for his movement's benefit.

So... despite what the 'evidence' shows, You have decided to default to simple faith because it is what you choose to believe?!?

Now if I were of the Atheist system of belief, you do know that i would be required at this point to baseball bat you verbably, until you conceeded the point or till you left the forum, because your 'faith' is contrary to what the evidence concludes. That said it seem to be your lucky day, because i am not of that system of belief. All that my system of belief requires of me is that I point out your hyprocrisy, by showing you the level of faith you have invested in a system of belief that is supposedly based in evidence and Fact alone. then I am to tell you if you invested the same mustard seed of Faith in God, He would produce a yeild in your life 10x what you invested. Meaning if you Gave God what you give your current system of belie,f you would have all the 'evidence' you needed to sustain a real Faith.

[FallentoReason]

I can see you're trying to be very noble and I appreciate that, but how about you respond to my arguments? I don't need 'faith' to see what Luke did. There's still reason to believe his dishonest attempt at conversions, unless you have something proper to say against my last post. Try again.

[Drich]

I can see you're trying to be very noble and I appreciate that, but how about you respond to my arguments? I don't need 'faith' to see what Luke did. There's still reason to believe his dishonest attempt at conversions, unless you have something proper to say against my last post. Try again.

There is nothing to respond to. I gave you a time line that puts the works of luke about 20 years before the works of Joseuphs, I eliminated the works of barnabus, and the bit concerning the map.

So now you return to the works of Josephus despite what was said, and you take an account that was written some time after the life of Christ (for another purpose all together) and simply 'believe' that it is the inspiration of the works of Luke.. (And appearently Matthew and Mark as well for do not forget they both record the event.)

To which I said was fine, but also told you that your efforts were the result of Faith, and not 'reason.' I am not here to argue your faith, or what you simple wish to be true. I am here to simply clear up or straighten out any biblically based misunderstandings.

[FallentoReason]

There is nothing to respond to. I gave you a time line that puts the works of luke about 20 years before the works of Joseuphs, I eliminated the works of barnabus, and the bit concerning the map.

20 years is a huge exaggeration. Luke was written in 55 A.D?? You're dreaming . My framework consists of understanding the first Gospel written, Mark, which was after the destruction of the temple putting it at no earlier than 70 A.D. Then a synoptic understanding would mean Matthew and Luke logically came after Mark making it fair game that Luke could have been written after War of the Jews.

I agree about the Gospel of Barnabas and the geographic dispute. Tomorrow I'll sort through the evidence again and put forth what remains of it that still makes sense in light of our discussion thus far.

So now you return to the works of Josephus despite what was said, and you take an account that was written some time after the life of Christ (for another purpose all together) and simply 'believe' that it is the inspiration of the works of Luke.. (And appearently Matthew and Mark as well for do not forget they both record the event.)

As I see it, this is the new frontier of the discussion now, which I will clear up tomorrow because I'm going to bed.

To which I said was fine, but also told you that your efforts were the result of Faith, and not 'reason.' I am not here to argue your faith, or what you simple wish to be true. I am here to simply clear up or straighten out any biblically based misunderstandings.

I can assure you your judgement of my efforts is wrong. It's most definitely not faith based. I wrote up this thread seeing the reasons for why I was right and thanks to your determination we've cleared some things up. I hope you realise by now that I've admitted to conceding a point several times. I don't have an agenda or 'wish things to be true'. I simply want the truth and nothing but the truth.

On a side note: don't ever compare me to other atheists. In all honesty I hate that word because no matter how much people will repeat it's meaning I still see it as carrying baggage. I'm a free thinker that is open to anything provided you show me the reasons for why it is so. I'm all ears to what you have to say.

[FallentoReason]

The parallels as I see them now:

Josephus
>Jews drowning close to the coast
>Roman legions being responsible

Luke
>'Legion' being a collection of demons
>'Legion' making pigs drown at the coast

[Drich]

The parallels as I see them now:

Josephus
>Jews drowning close to the coast
>Roman legions being responsible

Luke
>'Legion' being a collection of demons
>'Legion' making pigs drown at the coast

As I point out what you 'believe' is based in simply faith. I am not here to take that from you. If you want to believe this then you are free to do so.