(December 17, 2018 at 2:08 pm)Drich Wrote: 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.
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