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.

I actually was making this point in post 42 where it shows the brother of antipas, Archelaus as the king of judea while antipas rules as tetarch. Archelaus was an entarch. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

And what's more my original argument : Bears out Archelaus as a possible luke 1:5 'herod.'



Again not disputing "the great" being identified in other books of the bible. just point out that in luke the translation CAN push the time line back as it is possible to have two different herods one beng the king of judea and the other of galilee at the same time. (remember tetrarch= 4 rulers, and there are 4 siblings. rome divided HtG kingdom amongst the children of herod.)
Granted this is a hair that does not need to be split unless you are trying to rectify the time line held with in luke. at which point can be justified with a later date.

look this is not my message as it did not originate from me. it is a message I have heard several times in the past. it is not a for or against which time lie. it simply offers a different pov.