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

[Drich]

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.
...
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...

...

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.

I'm exhausted from repeating myself as well but I do note how you've moved to the position that the use of the word "Herod" is "ambiguous", as if it could have referred to either Herod. No, it's not (edit to add: for reasons already articulated ad neuseum) but hey, I'll take any progress at this point.

Here 's the problem you have. 

You said antipas could not have or hold the title king. That was wrong. you never admitted to this, and this was the primary crux of my argument. to show you in secular and in transitive history how and indeed why antipas could be considered king even as a tetrarch. all your references hinged in luke which again is ambiguous as the word could be used for both was my point. When you brought in the book of Matthew you moved the goal posts and changed the dynamic of the discussion.

If at any point you had simple conceded the point I was making we could have moved on to who was actually king. my argument was not about who was king when Jesus was born but how the word could have been used. It was not till you brought in the book of Matthew did the conversation change and then become about who was actually on the throne.

I am sorry or my roll in this mix up

---

I love how this uneducated moron continually goes on about how we don't understand proper research and debate, and yet he's the one who posted three sources that directly contradicted his claims all in a row.   If you don't get the big bits, I'm pretty confident you don't get the small bits, either.

This is the problem with stupid.  Stupid never gets tired.

what i love is when someone jumps in a third part discussion at the end of someone else's effort and proceeds to do a victory lap, when she has been given her own challenge that thus far goes unanswered.