Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 4, 2018 at 2:14 pm
(December 4, 2018 at 1:48 pm)Drich Wrote: (December 4, 2018 at 1:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: And you were shown that Luke refers to Herod Antipas as "Herod the tetrarch" (see Luke 9:7).
keep reading cherry picker
I have. Luke's name for Herod Antipas is "Herod the Tetrarch" not "Herod, King of Judea".
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 4, 2018 at 2:17 pm
(December 4, 2018 at 2:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: (December 4, 2018 at 1:48 pm)Drich Wrote: keep reading cherry picker
I have. Luke's name for Herod Antipas is "Herod the Tetrarch" not "Herod, King of Judea".
And as the link i provided states both titles are equally valid. meaning there is nothing that says luke could not have used either or both.
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 4, 2018 at 2:47 pm
(December 4, 2018 at 2:17 pm)Drich Wrote: (December 4, 2018 at 2:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I have. Luke's name for Herod Antipas is "Herod the Tetrarch" not "Herod, King of Judea".
And as the link i provided states both titles are equally valid. meaning there is nothing that says luke could not have used either or both.
Textural evidence. Luke uses the term "tetrarch" when he specifies he's speaking of Antipas (Luke 9:7). You ASSUME his earlier reference to "King of Judea" is a reference to Antipas and not Herod the Great but that would have been inconsistent of Luke.
Prove that Luke used the term "king of Judea" to refer to Antipas.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 4, 2018 at 3:18 pm
(December 4, 2018 at 2:47 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: (December 4, 2018 at 2:17 pm)Drich Wrote: And as the link i provided states both titles are equally valid. meaning there is nothing that says luke could not have used either or both.
Textural evidence. Luke uses the term "tetrarch" when he specifies he's speaking of Antipas (Luke 9:7). You ASSUME his earlier reference to "King of Judea" is a reference to Antipas and not Herod the Great but that would have been inconsistent of Luke.
Prove that Luke used the term "king of Judea" to refer to Antipas.
again one use, does not define or break consistency. And again it was correct to use either term meaning it would follow if he were speaking to a jew he would use the term king, and if he were speaking to a gentile or in an official roman capacity he would use tetrarch as that was his roman designation. meaning to the roman his title tetarch was what gave him authority over the region... But to the Jew.. His blood line as a descendant of herod the great made him King or rather is what the jews recognised as his authority. The Jews saw a King the Romans a tetrarch
So again moron both terms are equally valid!!!
Why would you come at me with unsourced un thought out BS?
Come on people time to step things up!!! This lazy arm chair historian BS does not fly here!
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 4, 2018 at 3:36 pm
(December 4, 2018 at 3:18 pm)Drich Wrote: (December 4, 2018 at 2:47 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Textural evidence. Luke uses the term "tetrarch" when he specifies he's speaking of Antipas (Luke 9:7). You ASSUME his earlier reference to "King of Judea" is a reference to Antipas and not Herod the Great but that would have been inconsistent of Luke.
Prove that Luke used the term "king of Judea" to refer to Antipas.
again one use, does not define or break consistency. And again it was correct to use either term meaning it would follow if he were speaking to a jew he would use the term king, and if he were speaking to a gentile or in an official roman capacity he would use tetrarch as that was his roman designation. meaning to the roman his title tetarch was what gave him authority over the region... But to the Jew.. His blood line as a descendant of herod the great made him King or rather is what the jews recognised as his authority. The Jews saw a King the Romans a tetrarch
So again moron both terms are equally valid!!!
Why would you come at me with unsourced un thought out BS?
Come on people time to step things up!!! This lazy arm chair historian BS does not fly here!
Please cite for me chapter and verse where Luke specifically refers to Antipas as both "king" and "of JUDEA".
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 5, 2018 at 1:28 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2018 at 1:36 pm by Drich.)
(December 4, 2018 at 3:36 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: (December 4, 2018 at 3:18 pm)Drich Wrote: again one use, does not define or break consistency. And again it was correct to use either term meaning it would follow if he were speaking to a jew he would use the term king, and if he were speaking to a gentile or in an official roman capacity he would use tetrarch as that was his roman designation. meaning to the roman his title tetarch was what gave him authority over the region... But to the Jew.. His blood line as a descendant of herod the great made him King or rather is what the jews recognised as his authority. The Jews saw a King the Romans a tetrarch
So again moron both terms are equally valid!!!
Why would you come at me with unsourced un thought out BS?
Come on people time to step things up!!! This lazy arm chair historian BS does not fly here!
Please cite for me chapter and verse where Luke specifically refers to Antipas as both "king" and "of JUDEA".
luke 1: 5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the priestly course of Abijah; and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+1&version=KJ21
how do I know which herod is being discussed for that we turn to a concordance: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2264&t=KJV scroll down to section "B" and all your objections will be throughly be answered concerning the person in luke 1 is speaking of.
And again in chapter three where he is referred to as the 'tetrarch' same man different title one jewish in authority one roman in authority same person.
How soundly must you be proven wrong before you conceded?
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 5, 2018 at 1:36 pm
(December 5, 2018 at 1:28 pm)Drich Wrote: (December 4, 2018 at 3:36 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Please cite for me chapter and verse where Luke specifically refers to Antipas as both "king" and "of JUDEA".
luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the priestly course of Abijah; and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+1&version=KJ21
And you can prove he was talking about Antipas? I'll wait...
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 5, 2018 at 1:37 pm
don't have to wait long it was already answered
Posts: 5336
Threads: 198
Joined: June 24, 2010
Reputation:
77
RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 5, 2018 at 1:39 pm
(December 5, 2018 at 1:37 pm)Drich Wrote: don't have to wait long it was already answered
When?
By "prove" I don't mean "assert".
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 5, 2018 at 1:41 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2018 at 1:43 pm by Drich.)
just incase you missed it:
how do I know which herod is being discussed for that we turn to a concordance: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2264&t=KJV scroll down to section "B" and all your objections will be throughly be answered concerning the person in luke 1 is speaking of.
And again in chapter three where he is referred to as the 'tetrarch' same man different title one jewish in authority one roman in authority same person.
How soundly must you be proven wrong before you conceded?
douche byproof i mean secondary source material as in a concordance/lexicon I'm sure someone like you knows what that is.. it is a reference book that underwrites a translation like the bible and in it every word it placed and defined in it's original context and defination..
Meaning IF I was wondering which herod a passage referred to all I have to do is look it up, and it will tell me.
|
