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

[Drich]

[quote pid='1866850' dateline='1544547962']

Drich

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

You are as delusional as you are moronic. You keep clicking on the link to "Herod", which is giving you all the references to BOTH Herod the Great AND Herod Antipas. I've already pointed out your error but I'll go even slower:[/quote] This is a lie #1 you have failed to point out anything. you only reference some magic book only you can see. over and over I ask for a point of reference and over and over you reference or rather make a statement you think you'd find in a commentary but anyone with a year's experience would be able to see through your words.

Notice on the page you link to how there are eight (8) references to "Herod" in Matthew Chapter 2.  

Lie #2 or rather moving the goalposts. We have YET to speak of the book of Matthew and now you are bring it up as if this was in a single argument of yours. This is a liar move sport.
Because IF
Look carefully. Even you can't miss it....

If you click on Herod the great translation scroll down to luke 1 you will see it is the same word. Meaning 'Herod" is all we have. technically The bible rather mathew nor luke makes a distinction between the herod of luke one or matthew 2. all we have is church tradition.. Nothing in the bible says church tradition is infallible. That said there is evidence for both what I have said to be true and an earlier birth to be true. either way the church no matter which side of the debate you are on knows the time line is off.

Matthew Chapter 2 details the story of the "wise men" and the "slaughter of the innocents" and Jesus' family's escape to Egypt. You know the story, I assume, so I don't have to cut-and-paste all eight verses where Herod's name is mentioned? 

to put on my atheist shoes, nothing in secular history says this even happens.. Either Way church tradition ascribes this to the great while the bible ambiguously says "herod' to say one or the other would mean the same man did both what is recorded in luke and in mat...

This story references Herod the Great. 

again shifting the goal posts as we have yet to discuss matthew, but gain the translation would allow for both oly church herod the great.

This story references Herod the Great on the page of references you claim mention only Herod Antipas. 

Now are you going to argue that Matthew Chapter 2 is also talking about Herod Antipas? Then why are they in Jerusalem, a city that Antipas never ruled? 

I'm saying the translation is ambiguous and either or will work here!!! Luke references "herod" and Matt only references "herod.' one or both can technically work here. Meaning Herod the great or antipas depending on who you think ruled.

I'm going to pause to give you time for your addled brain to catch up.  

Should I do the same? if so I'll leave a little short video for you to watch that summarizes what just happened to you.

Jesus was born in galilee moron 

What does that have to do with Herod Antipas not being King of JUDEA? 

Again, I'll go slow.

Antipas... never... ruled... all... of... Judea. 

Therefore... he... was... not... "King of Judea". 

Even... if... he... had... the... title... "king".

Is that point sinking in yet? 

One thing at a time. we are still working on translation and the ambiguity of "herod.' If you want to look at the great then know the bible makes room for this take as well!

New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, Oxford University Press, footnote on Luke 1:5
http://www.allsaintstupelo.com/Bible_NRSV.pdf
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...on=NRSVACE

So shall we call this (the magical reference only you can see) lie number 3?

[quote]
"In the days of King Herod of Judea" refers broadly to 37-4 BCE.

No mention of any scholarly controversy about this point. Odd, isn't it? It's almost like nobody supports your bullshit account. 

wait a tick when was jesus born? You honestly don't know.. You don't know there are 2 schools of thought here one that jesus was born before and the other Jesus was born late. I was working with the late theory because you wanted to argue luke 1. While luke identifies Herod 1 by identifying jesus was born while herod was king he does not say king of what. which leaves the door open. However if you want to bring mat into the equation luke's translation will allow a early 4 to 6 bc birth as well because luke identifies herod the same way matthew does. So again it works either way.for example here is the other explaination:
https://www.gotquestions.org/what-year-w...-born.html

Seem to me you are one of the atheist dummies that don't know Christ was not born on december 25 0001... That our years were estimated by some monk in the 500s and was not used till the 800 this monk guesstimate how long back Jesus was born through various records and genealogies. he was not far off but missed the target by about 4 to 6 years.

I like to think born late because it pull the time line between the gospels and epistles and makes them jive better, and it gives the reason for the census. ( pre census as a new ruler would demand one to know how and where to tax) which would make sense as Joseph was called back to bethlehem in galilee where antipas ruled.


[quote]
I think at this point, the only question anyone will have is why I'm wasting time trying to reason with a deluded moron like yourself.

What a dishonest person you are. lie #4
because keep on arguing the points, because you think you can pull a loss out of my win by moving goal posts. you pretend like you had a reference point you pretended you referenced or provided it many times.

Tell you what sport I'm done here you can call it a win if you like because everything I have to say has been said and backed up many times over with proper translation.