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?