(September 18, 2013 at 3:57 pm)Drich Wrote: 1/2 truth. Archelaus is only mentioned in Verse two, every other time Matthew mentions Archelaus he simple refers to him as herod, the ruler or King of Galalee
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2264&t=KJV
Nice try. Archelaus is not Antipas, which the passages refer to.
Quote:Herod the Great is always Identified as "H The Great" or King H 'the Great.' in Mat
Not in the Matt passages I quoted.
Quote:In Luke 3 Luke attempts to separate the various herods, but ultimately refers to the ruler of Galalee [sic] as King Herod or simply Herod.
The ruler of Galilee was Antipas.
Quote:Remember Luke is also the writer of acts and as such all of what I said applies to the book of acts as well. (Which starts at the death of Jesus 33AD well past the reign of HTG)
Again, Antipas is not Achelaus and I find it highly dubious that the same author of Luke's Gospel also wrote Acts. Luke has Jesus rising into Heaven on the day of his resurrection. Acts has Jesus terry for 40 days.
Can you cite ... any scholarly opinion that Luke was referring to Archelaus?
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
