Uncovering the Lucan Allegory

[FallentoReason]

Did they give you book chapter and verse that supported this 'added teaching?'

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

Lets start by looking at a real map shall we: http://classic.net.bible.org/map.php?map=map1

If you clicked on the link you can almost draw a stright line between the two regions. (Directly across the sea of Galilee ) and if you look at the map topicagraphically you will note the easiest way from Galilee to 'Gerasa" is straight across the sea. so to say "Gerasa is a cross the sea of Galilee." is not inaccurate, because it is literally across the sea (as the bird flies, and the easiest way to get there.)

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

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.

Nothing about walking x miles to Gerasa. 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.

You knew what a man was thinking 2000 years before you were born?

Empty conjecture.

You're right. My story-telling ways got to me

We have a problem with your quote in that Chapter three in Josephus' Jewish War' Because it only goes to paragraph 5. That means 3:10:8 does not exist.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/f...ter-3.html

Maybe you can provide a link to your version of Josephus' work. i am sure there is an honest mistake here somewhere.

Which kinda put the kibosh on this quote as well, until we can sort out this descrepency.

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.

You are quoting the gospel of Barnabas?!?!? (You are) Not only is this not a canocial text it is wasn't written till the mid 16th century and is considered to support the Islamic view of Christ.

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.

The only thing we can reference from either of two sources you listed are: best case you had to find/create two noncanocial texts and then cherry pick two seperate writers talking about two very seperate things and then smash them together, all to say the book of luke in it's complete and contextual form is a copy of two seperate works. that by all rights were written after the accepted date of the Gospel of Luke.

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...

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

Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).[73] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,[74] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems necessary.[75][76] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[77] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.[78]
Some scholars from the Jesus Seminar argue that the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a late development in gospel writing about Jesus.[33] In this view, Luke might have originally started at 3:1,[33] with John the Baptist.
The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[79] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[80] Christian scholar Donald Guthrie claims that the Gospel was likely widely known before the end of the 1st century, and was fully recognized by the early part of the second,[81] while Helmut Koester states that aside from Marcion, "there is no certain evidence for its usage," prior to ca. 150.[82] In the middle of the 2nd century, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke was the only gospel accepted by Marcion, a heretic who rejected Christianity's connection to Jewish scripture.[83]

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.

what you actually have is either a mis reference on one critical source or a complete faberication (that maybe the work of another), and a reference from a text written 1400 years after said events, shunned by the Christian community and adopted by the Islamic community. to try and build a case against the gospel of luke. All inspired by some guy who wants to sell books like this to people like you. (Books like this meaning something that sounds legitmate and may even stand up to some limited scrutiny, but in the end fold because they are of little substance.)

Josephus still stands.

P.s. I just noticed I linked you to the wrong site before. It's meant to be http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS3.htm. There's 'JOEGOS2' to 'JOEGOS5' and so I got confused.