(December 14, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.
I said that Luke 1:5 is a reference to Herod the Great.
Quote:Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea
I offered textural evidence that Luke refers to Antipas as...
Quote:Luke 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch
...and it would have been an inconsistency for him to refer to Antipas as "the king of Judea".
I also offered you historical evidence: Antipas never ruled Judea.
I also offered you scholarly consensus.
You only offered your link to the Bluebook Bible where you clicked on "Herod". My mention of Matthew, which was on that page, was to point out your error.
You lost, sir. Good day, sir. Quit flogging that horse.
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
