C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real

[Drich]

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!