RE: C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real
December 10, 2018 at 4:51 pm
(This post was last modified: December 10, 2018 at 5:03 pm by DeistPaladin.)
(December 10, 2018 at 4:36 pm)Drich Wrote: Dear Dummy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas
...
Oh Sweet Reason, are you seriously trying to hit the reset button and start all over, hoping to wear me down and you "win" when I give up trying to correct your strange beliefs? We've been all over this.
Quote:Herod Antipater (Greek: Ἡρῴδης Ἀντίπατρος, Hērǭdēs Antipatros; born before 20 BC – died after 39 AD), known by the nickname who bore the title of tetrarch ("ruler of a quarter") and is referred to as both "Herod the Tetrarch"[1] and "King Herod"[2] in the New Testament although he never held the title of king.[3] He is widely known today for accounts in the New Testament of his role in events that led to the executions of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth.
After being recognized by Augustus upon the death of his father, Herod the Great (c. 4 BC/AD 1), and subsequent ethnarch rule by his brother, Herod Archelaus, Antipas officially ruled Galilee and Perea as a client state of the Roman Empire.[4][5] He was responsible for building projects at Sepphoris and Betharamphtha, and more important for the construction of his capital Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Named in honor of his patron, the emperor Tiberius, the city later became a center of rabbinic learning.
which was the region Jesus was born in.. IE Luke 1
The Gospel of Luke (which is the specific part of the New Testament we're discussing) refers to Herod Antipas as "Herod the Tetrarch" (see Luke 9:7). It would be an inconsistency by the author to refer to him elsewhere as "king". Hence, textural evidence supports my position.
Furthermore, Herod Antipas did NOT rule all of Judea, so it would be an error to refer to him as "the king of Judea". Historical evidence supports my position.
This is why mainstream scholarship, including my citation of a publication from OXFORD UNIVERSITY, believes that Luke refers to "Herod the Great" when he says "Herod, the King of Judea" in Luke 1:5.
Your own source material, whoever the hell these bluebook bozos are, does NOT support your conclusion that "Herod, the King of Judea" in Luke 1:5 refers to Antipas.
You lose, sir. Good day, sir.
Quote:"Calling you 'stupid' would be an insult to stupid people."-A Fish Called Wanda
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
"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
