(December 17, 2018 at 3:02 pm)Drich Wrote:
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.
OK, so you've gone from trying to prove Antipas was the Herod mentioned in Luke 1:5 to Archelaus was our Herod of Luke 1:5. And you claim that I move the goalposts.
Scholarly consensus favors my interpretation. Do you have any evidence to offer for yours?
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
