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

[Drich]

alright one more time. I took a few days to collect my thoughts and re read the argument.

The opposing/loosing argument is the herod the great was the only possible king of judea when christ was born. and yes if you look at other books this is possible and even the most likly situation..

However in looking what luke records we can make an argument for a much later date. I made this argument and you continue to blow past it because you don't seem to understand the linchpin of the whole horndean line. 3 brothers and 1 daughter all share the same name. While antipas or antipater was tetrarch HEROD Archelaus was entriarch of judea. or King of judea or as luke puts it While "Herod was King of judea..."

Which bring us back to the crux of my primary argument that the term "herod in luke" is an ambiguous name. it could mean any one of the 3 male herods. This time it meant Archelaus not the great, because of the 11 year gap between john and jesus. Sorry sport. should have put you out of your misery days ago.

I hope you enjoyed you brief victory lap now it's time to put this to bed.

---

Now you're just making up lies.  As anyone can see in the quoted post, below, I said that I would not have the opportunity to read and respond to your post until Tuesday at the earliest, and promised only to, "see what I can do then."  I also indicated quite clearly that it was possible that I might not respond and went out of my way to thank you for your reply.  Well, I guess it's true that no good deed goes unpunished, because now, here you are, making a gross misrepresentation of what I had said and trying to score points by casting my not responding as some sort of failing on my part.  As noted, there was no victory lap involved, so that's just more dishonest crap from you.

Honestly, Drich, all you're succeeding in doing is pointing out what a lying ass you are, and giving me very good cause to consider reading or responding to your posts a lower priority than the very low priority it already is.  Do you really need a map here?  You're a complete fucking ass, and a monumentally incompetent one at that -- lying about a recent post that is readily available to anyone's inspection.  That alone is worth mega stupidity points.  I may or may not respond to the post you posted, but I'm feeling less inclined to do so now than I may have been originally.  I had basically decided to leave things as they were.  I had no idea you were so morally bankrupt that after my kindness in the matter, you would try to throw my failure to read and respond to your reply back in my face in an attempt to score points.  You are truly a despicable person, Drich, and I have little doubt about which place you are going to go after you die.

Now, given that what little interest in your prior post that I may have had has been hunted down and mercilessly killed by you, if there is something specific in your reply that you would like me to address, I suggest you bring it up in response to this post and I'll see what I can do.  This is not a promise that I will respond, but rather a note that as a result of your behavior, what hope you had of my addressing the original reply is pretty much gone.  

Don't be too cross Derpch clearly has reading issues if a clear "at the earliest " didn't register .

maybe it is you who does not understand as you are responding literally 1/2 through the discussion.

I said I clearly understand she does not have to answer anything I said which is why I applaud her for doing a victory dance for apparently defeating me in verbal kombat when she did even both answering a post I wrote to her directly... More specifically doing a dance because of someone else's effort all together ignoring what was addressed to her specifically (sound familiar sport?)

Do you understand now? probably not, so allow me to explain so you don't twist things in your mind and hurt yourself.

Jorgie had a big long post directed at her specifically. again to which no one has to answer anything I say to them but, if said person ceases the opportunity to do a victory dance on someone else's 'win'.. It makes them look intellectually weak or at the very least very lazy. why? because clearly they can not find enough conflict in what I directed at them, to mount a defense or counter point. or they simply don't want to.. because clearly they want to see me fail other wise why the victory lap when they never even ran the race given their own specific opportunity???

Kinda like you who as far as I know have never met. yet you feel like you won something strong enough to belittle my character when your only effort was to copy and paste the works of others and add you own BS commentary.. get over yourself we do not need another bill marr. try original thought. try and speak topically, try and pick up a thread and see if you can openly defend you pov, and if you can THEN do a victory lap, other wise you look like a johnny come lately looser piling on someone else's work!