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

[Drich]

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. 

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. 

ad nauseum but I can keep going over and over this as the research bit has been done and is staring you in the face.
The reason your argument:

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"

is invalid for the following reasons:
1) Luke in the greek only used one word ever to originally describe herod and that is Strong's number: g2264 Ἡρῴδης Hērōdēs (the first number being the word number in the Strong's lexicon/every word in the bible has a greek number so as to track how many times it shows up and how it is translated. The same word is used in luke 1 as well as in your reference luke 9:7. Meaning Luke in the koine greek only used one word and that was: word number g2264 In luke 1 we know Antipas is referenced because the translation count part of the referenced website includes G2264 as being counted among the herod antipas translation

2) when the word was translated to english in luke 1 Herod Antipas was used, and when G2264 was translated in luke 9 shows the same greek word g2264 being used, but it was translated Tetrarch why? the above wiki article describes why.. because this man was known to the greeks as the tetrarch and to the jews as herod antipas, so both where used so this passage speaks to a broader audience.

3)but despite that the same exact word was used in luke one as well as luke 9:7
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/s...rimary_0_1

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. 

Jesus was born in galilee moron luke one references his birth so this would be bethlehem which is smack dab in the middle of galilee!!! chapter 9 says herod is simply seeking info about Jesus, nothing more. Book chapter and verse n the judea bit please.

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. 

you have yet t post one 1 ONE point of reference. not only that you were quoting some other rando source before this one. and despite your petagree... You don't understand how an intellectual debate is structured. Oxford cambridge yale all mean dick here. As anything they offer is a commentary or in the classification of source material a teteriary source. mean it has gone through at least 3 if not 4 interpretations or rewordings before you have a chance to misunderstand it..

I on the other hand offered links to primary and secondary source material meaning you are hearing things directly off the translation matrix. no filters no bias just pure raw fact/truth. You are providing material that tells you what o think I am providing information to allow a smart person to draw their own conclusion! Primary material ALWAYS trumps tertiary material. Tertiary you have yet to once produce btw. While I provided links to the actual greek being used in luke 1 and in luke 9 showed you it is literally the same word and word number, meaning the author used only one word, but in the english it was translated in the first instance to antipas and in the second the tetrarch.. again a translation decision as for the reason the wiki tells us because to the jews he was a king and to the greeks/romans he was a tetrarch. Your argument despite coming from oxford is at a legitimate end sport. your pedigree means dick next to a primary sourced argument with deets/reference notations. which I have provided in quadruplet.

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. 

ask one of your peers dummy. you are obviously not smart enough to know what a lexicon is let alone use it. The blue letter bible is the gold standard on line source for any and all on line bible study it is a concordance lexicon interlinear and about 5 more reference sources all pertaining to koine greek and hebrew translation to english. This is a complete one stop definitive source as a free to all online bank of biblical reference, from pronunciation of the greek and hebrew to maps of the time and region to links to modern sources. For you as just a lexicon let say for a moment that there is a book that takes the bible word for word and identifies/translates each and every greek and hebrew word in the bible assigns it a number than not only translates the word but defines it, then catalogs how many times the word is used and if the same word is used to translates different word when and where each difference use was translated.

That my small minded friend is just the lexicon part. that alone ends your argument because we can go back in the kone greek and indeed see the same exact word being used to identify antipas in chapter 1 as well as the tetrarch in chapter 9. the word being Hērōdēs both times.. so luke used the same word... we in the english decided to translate ne antipas and the other tetrarch

so lets see a meme of you eating crow troll..